I said carbon credits (in it's current enron-accounting form) is paying someone to do nothing, and that carbon credits and a carbon tax are both types of negative action social engineering, likely to fail.

If you're going for utilitarianism, pick a more politically agreeable utility, like actual sequestration, if you want to be successful.

I fail to see how a carbon tax "only slows a net loss". Are you implying that economy is a zero sum game and that investment does not yield results?

I'm speaking as a matter of strategy. A carbon tax might work, and be seen as a victory, tactically, but will be the wrong move, strategically.

It prevents addition of co2, but does not subtract. Focus on encouraging and incentives for subtraction, not preventing addition. If you want people to get on board. (I get that reducing emissions means less to sequester. That's thinking short term, and beyond minor cutbacks, a political loser. A successful solution won't require that to be effective.)

I'm saying anything punitive and negatively coercive is the wrong approach. It might technically work, but won't ever be successful politically. Unless we go full authoritarian regime. As soon as a large enough portion of the population is hit with having to change lifestyle, it's done for. Focus on solutions that don't require that.