They need not be regressive. For starters, high income people tend to have much greater carbon footprints. I, in the top decile, probably quintuple my carbon

They need not be regressive. For starters, high income people tend to have much greater carbon footprints. I, in the top decile, probably quintuple my carbon footprint by engaging in a little bit of unnecessary air travel (living in New England, in 2018 I went once to Shanghai, once to Puerto Rico, and once to Montana). The average private jet owner probably has a carbon footprint 10x - 100x of mine. Then, you have a tax and it _still_ turns out to be regressive (or even if it doesn't), you can use the tax revenue in a way that disproportionally benefits low income people. The best policy (IMO) is a carbon fee-and-dividend, where all of the proceeds of the tax are redistributed evenly amongst all residents of the nation. There is a bill in the US congress that would enact just this policy (https://energyinnovationact.org/ https://energyinnovationact.org/) (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/7173 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/7173). If you like the policy, let your congressmen know. And everyone else too. And it _really_ is the best policy. Even if it did nothing to reduce emissions, it's a matter of justice. I won't tell you that you can't fly across the country every single weekend or emit a gigaton of carbon mining bitcoin but, if you do, you _really_ should reimburse me and my 2-year-old daughter for the harm you're doing to our futures.