> You say that as if it's a bad thing, but making pollution more expensive for the consumer is a good thing.

I don’t think it’s a bad thing. We should make polluting activities more expensive. But the accurate version of the statement shows why we won’t do it: most of the increased costs will be passed onto voters. Not only that, but higher gas prices dampen consumer spending and slow economic growth: https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/how-higher-gas-prices-hur...

Focusing on “big evil oil companies” makes for a neat narrative, but it blinds us to reality. There is a reason Obama attacked Romney in 2012 for wanting to shut down a coal plant: https://www.politico.com/blogs/politico44/2012/08/new-obama-... (“New Obama ad hits Romney on coal 'kills people' remarks”). There is a reason Obama still proudly takes credit for fracking: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/28/obama-takes.... He’s not doing this to appease the Exxon. He’s doing it because making polluting activities cheap is politically necessary.

Find a politician who wants to raises taxes for everybody in their current term. That's why so many countries are announcing they are banning ICE cars in a decade or more. By that time everybody would have forgotten which politician enacted it, if they are even still in a political career.

You’re insufficiently cynical. By the time these ICE car bans go into effect, politicians whose terms it will fall on will grant “temporary extension” until after their term, rinse and repeat.

I suspect that many are hoping that ICE cars will be more expensive and less popular by the time their ban rolls around.

Activists, maybe, but politician's only hopes are about reelection, not environment.

Politicians really hope that too; that way if they're still in power the technical ban will be nothing more than an interesting note than anything that actually needs to be done.