Taxes are known to be quite effective at moderating people's behavior: cigarette taxes reduce smoking; alcohol taxes reduce consumption, etc.

The gotcha with gasoline is that we are far more addicted to it as a society than we ever were to cigarettes, and increases in fuel prices reduce GDP (in the short term, at least). Which means this tactic is politically difficult, and unlikely to survive an economic downturn.

FWIW, I think that the ban is a pipe dream. Come 2030, they will push it back to 2045. I honestly think the best approach is to limit the number of roads that are built. No more adding lanes to 12-16 lane highways that seem to be gridlocked from 6am until midnight anyway. Instead, force people to seek out alternatives to driving because more cars literally can't fit on the road.

> FWIW, I think that the ban is a pipe dream. Come 2030, they will push it back to 2045. I honestly think the best approach is to limit the number of roads that are built. No more adding lanes to 12-16 lane highways that seem to be gridlocked from 6am until midnight anyway. Instead, force people to seek out alternatives to driving because more cars literally can't fit on the road.

If the current impacts of climate change on California continue for the next 5 years, I expect the ban will be moved forward not delayed. Having to spend weeks at a time indoors looking out at a muted orange sky with no sun has had a sobering effect on most vocal climate change deniers. Considering this issue has been getting increasingly worse over the past 10 years, I suspect voter support for climate action will increase.

I do agree about limiting the size of roads though.

I sincerely hope you are right.

First you need actual working carbon capture technology. Then you can estimate how much it costs.