A carbon tax.

If addressing climate change relies on people changing habits against their selfish interests, then we are doomed.

The externality should be internalised with a carbon tax. It's the simple, most obvious solution and it will cause selfish interest and ethical choices to align when it comes to carbon emission.

I prefer a "green credit" to a "carbon tax".

A tax will always be passed on to the consumer, even if the govt taxes Ford, it will just make the car more expensive.

Using game theory, a question could be "how do we get Ford to make more electric cars, improve efficiency of electric car production, and incentivize them to advertise electric cars?"

My take is that businesses drive change, not consumers. On the whole, consumers are told what they want.

Of course it makes the ICE car more expensive (when including fuel costs). That's the whole idea.

Consumers will see that EVs are cheaper (post-tax) and will switch to EVs as a consequence.

You can make the tax revenue neutral.

The whole point of a carbon tax is to be passed on to the consumer. That's a feature, not a bug.

Consumer want cars (and appliances in general) that, all else being equal, are cheaper to own and use.

With a carbon tax, Ford can decide whether they want to offer more efficient ICE or electric cars to reach that goal.

(And consumers can decide whether to use any of these options that Ford offers, or to just drive less.

Or, for some, to just suck up the cost and drive the same as before.)

This is not making sense. Credit is necesarily coming from some place, that is in most likely tax revenue, so it is mostly in same as a tax but with more steps and smaller direct impact. Also not correct, some tax can often be absorb by producer. You are making wrong question: goal is for to reduce carbon not producing more electric cars. This is possibly meaning different mode of transport, some things maybe remote, bicycles, trains, others. Carbon tax is enabling persons to make decision about best outcome and create the minimal of economic damage. Our needed outcome is createing tax for cost of carbon capture for every ton made of carbon in atomosphere. In ideal, this become a method for which any business can starting carbon capture, can receiving a simpel certification. Any person is then capable of finding any other person for to do his carbon capture and then producing appropriate credit form for government. This has making of capture all carbon in eventually and also creating lowest price with insentive for new developing technology.

> Our needed outcome is createing tax for cost of carbon capture for every ton made of carbon in atomosphere.

That's one outcome, but not the only one. Things like emission taxation make sense, even if there's no remediation financed with the proceeds.

See eg the sulphur dioxide emissions cap and trade program. (https://voxeu.org/article/lessons-climate-policy-us-sulphur-...) I don't think they used the proceeds to fund sulphur dioxide capture.

> This is possibly meaning different mode of transport, some things maybe remote, bicycles, trains, others.

Yes, exactly. Also: just forgoing some trips. Or driving more efficiently etc.

When the carbon tax* was introduced in Australia our tax free threshold was increased from $6k to $18k which more than covered the increase in costs caused by the tax.

*This has since been repealed, a decision I strongly disagree with.

I believe canada proposed doing it by taking all the money collected through the carbon tax and giving it equally to all Canadian citizens. This would mean everyone gets back the amount that the average person paid, making it so the average person sees no change in their level of taxation. (It also has the effect of turning it into a highly progressive tax)

When you propose a "green credit" instead of a "carbon tax", what do you mean? Is it just a different name for the same thing, or would it work differently? If it would work differently, then HOW? I'm assuming that a carbon tax would put a fixed tax per weight of C02 released charged either to the end-user or somewhere higher in the value chain (eg: a gas tax).

it's a subsidy vs a tax.

That sounds pretty bad.

I'd want to put driving-less on similar footing to buying a fancier car.

A carbon tax does that automatically with no extra bureaucracy.

(I'm all for taking the proceeds of a carbon tax and distributing them equally amongst all voters, if you want to make the whole thing revenue neutral for both the government and the 'average' consumer.)

Quit eating factory beef.

Not pinning the onus on individuals, but instead addressing the leverage points such as the corporate emissions regulations and enforcement mechanisms that exist today.

I think that is a false dichotomy, GP might care and want to change habits, but considers car exhaust such a small piece of the problem that it isn't worth changing driving habits. I'm not saying that is right, simply pointing out it isn't certain GP doesn't value changing habits.