A $100/ton carbon tax would raise $490b(based on 4.9 billion tons of co2 emissions[0]) per year that could be distributed to lower income households (to offset the effect, making the tax progressive) and be used to fund green energy investment.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economists%27_Statement_on_Car...
It's like taxing drugs more and more, we have already done this, taxing nicotine. It really didn't work until governments started banning some products across the globe. Before that it was just as deadly as usual, but more expensive with each new tax hike. And that is a luxury product, non essential one.
Taxing emissions too much to actually make a difference would mean taxing business so much that some low marginal ones would go bankrupt. And among those low marginal emitting businesses I'm pretty sure are a lot of truly essential ones, which we can afford to just rapidly close with no recourse. So they won;t be taxed as much or alternatively they will be subsidized after being taxed (yay, double the paperwork and double the options for corruption). And so emissions will stay around the same order of magnitude.
I would silently accept existence of the credits and taxes even if they were pointless, if in parallel governments had acknowledged and implemented actual research and later action to really combat climate change (DAC tech, sun shields, sulphur seeding etc.) at scale (important). But no luck :(