In Australia we tried a scheme with very low economic impact (despite scaremongering to the contrary) carbon tax, which provably reduced emissions before its repeal.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/carbon-pric...

Our Environment Minister doesn't believe in Climate Change. I expect we'll utterly fail to do something like this again.

That reminds me, where's my $750 Mr Abbott/Turnbull?

We're trying. The left opposes it because it doesn't make government bigger: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-lefts-opposition...

I'm not ideologically in favor of smaller or bigger government. I want smarter government, and there's nothing smart about passing legislation that will reduce the state government's revenue by between $80 and $900 million a year without defining what services to cut.

Also, "bigger government" is a vague enough definition that it could easily apply to this initiative. It creates a new category of tax, and a new category of tax credit. It will probably reduce the government's revenue, but the legislature can and most likely will raise revenue in other places to plug the gaps rather than cutting necessary agencies.

The same people who want a smaller government are also usually in favor of a balanced budget amendment, which would force any proposal to cut taxes or raise spending to specify how it balances.

Meanwhile, the right can't even recognize it's a real issue.

What do you think the bigger barrier is?

It is worse when the people who know they should act choose not to.

By and large the left aren't choosing not too, they are unable to act because we need to drag the right along kicking and screaming.

If we don't bring the right along then they'll either block any action (America) or create a huge fear campaign and repeal the action (Australia).