That's unpopular in part because it's extremely regressive. The amount you will have to change your life is going to be directly related to how wealthy you are.

That's unpopular in part because it's extremely regressive. The amount you will have to change your life is going to be directly related to how wealthy you are. The rich are unlikely to change. They'll simply pay more and move on, or dodge it by refueling and shopping in other countries. The middle class will have some adjustments. Maybe running the heat less, maybe they trade in their SUV for a sedan, maybe they vacation less. They'll get by fine. The poor will be utterly destroyed by this. Their cars are often the worst polluters because they're old (and may have had the catyllitic converter stolen in a bad neighborhood). Food costs will go up due to increased transportation costs (and possibly packaging costs, if suitable green replacements can't be found). Their homes are extremely unlikely to have modern, energy efficient upgrades (things like windows, more modern insulation, even sealing around windows might be bad). Their appliances are likewise unlikely to be modern and energy efficient. And supply and demand is not a good answer. If it was, no one would be living in those anyways. No one wants to live with a draft, but sometimes your options are a drafty apartment in a bad part of town, or a drafty apartment in a worse part of town. I do think it's doable, but it needs to be a lot more nuanced than "tax fossil fuels until people cave". That foists most of the problem onto the people with the least means to change.