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.
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.
On the other hand, rebuilding a road to physically slow down cars, work even without extreme fines. Providing a complex set of prevention, therapy and replacement activities for the drug users also mostly works.
Same with carbon tax, but worse - drugs or even speeding in cars are non essential. Emitting industries on the other hand often are essential. So they have even less incentive to close or downsize if fined. Instead they will do anything to continue while being taxed. Maybe they employ shifting production elsewhere, maybe bribe officials, maybe just hike prices and pray that their monopoly position will keep them in business. Point is, it won't reduce actual emissions.