I think this is a very worthwhile point to consider, and my thinking is moving in this direction as well, which is why I've been getting more involved with the Green New Deal in recent months.

1) In British Columbia, consumption of fuel has actually _gone_ up despite a tax on carbon (now at $35/ton). It had initially gone down when the tax was introduced...

2) The theory of change of the fee and dividend model was that it wouldn't enlarge the state, and therefore it would be attractive to Republicans. I've seen firsthand all the hemming and hawing of Republicans, and I've pretty nearly lost confidence in any of them coming forward--let alone with the conviction and speed we need. It's more likely to me that a liberal majority will strong-arm a green new deal type program in the next decade.

But that's just my take.

Almost all economists agree a carbon price is the most economically efficient way to cut carbon emissions. Putting economic proscriptions into political effect are of course another matter.

> It seems likely that demand for fossil fuels will prove rather inelastic

Doesn't the contrast between the US and Europe belie that? Petrol prices are double or more in much of Europe and their cars are smaller and more fuel efficient, their cities are denser, they drive less miles per capita, they invest more in public transport, use more bikes and scooters, etc.

Wasn't Europe always like that though? I don't think that has to do with petrol prices.