This analysis has quite a few assumptions in it, for example the carbon-tax might (and should) not come "alone" and many of the things stated can be tamed incre

This analysis has quite a few assumptions in it, for example the carbon-tax might (and should) not come "alone" and many of the things stated can be tamed increasing social spending, subsidizing basic needs etc. With the net effect that something like flight travel and secondary needs are going to be more expensive, while keeping the primary one at current cost-levels. Politics should (and often does) play a game of weights and counter-weights in economical terms to steer the society. So yes just introducing a heavy carbon-tax is not the right solution, and I also think that long term is useless: as an example, I live in Europe where the cost of fuel is significantly higher than in the US, but traffic and fuel usage is comparable. Most likely it was lower than US in the past, but society tend to catch up anyway. I think that something like the idea in the article is a good solution because it is not just a mere reduction, but could make carbon sequestration (via plants) useful to produce food, therefore fixing a present problem and as a byproduct also reducing a future problem. I still think that Carbon tax is needed, but it should come in a very well thought-out packet of reforms.