> Many people rely on cars and, especially, utility vehicles for their livelihood and mobility. Slapping an extra tax on them without a viable alternative does not reduce emissions,

It is far from this simple.

In the 2010's when a barrel of oil jumped to over $110 USD and gas prices spiked, people drove less and changed their purchasing habits to favour smaller vehicles.

When the prices dropped, those behaviours reverted.

That natural experiment shows us that there are a wide range of adaptations people will engage in that allow them to adjust to higher fuel prices while lowering carbon emissions.

> it only makes people poorer.

And this is why well-designed carbon tax programs include rebate and subsidy mechanisms to help relieve the financial burden and support the transition to EVs.

We've also seen some governments shift their tax burdens around. e.g. lowering income tax and applying a carbon tax. This helps get more money back into peoples pockets while still sending a price signal that leads to a change in consumer behaviour.

I think the price of oil is not key to what happened in France, apart perhaps from somewhat exacerbating the issue at a specific time. Again, they tried to slap an extra tax on fuel "because the environment", which people had no choice but to pay.

Sure, people might drive slightly less if fuel prices get high but this only means less trips that can be avoided. Going to work, going to supermarket, using utility vehicles for business cannot be avoided in most cases.

If you're a tradesperson or on low pay in a small town outside of Paris you depend on your vehicle for everything, you cannot "just drive less" and you cannot afford a band new one. So that extra tax directly reduced your (potentially already low) income without making any difference on emissions and the environment.

Basically many people thought the government disconnected from reality and was treating them as cash cows when they were not that well off to start with.

So, these measures must be staggered in time with a clear schedule so people can plan in advance and there must be viable EV alternatives for people, all the people, to switch to (viable means existing and affordable).

That's what they said with congestion taxes too. "People need to drive in the city. It will hit the poorest the most!" But in almost every city where it has been implemented it has reduced congestion. Same with taxes on tobacco which has reduced smoking in many countries. It's essentially the only thing economists agree on - higher taxes reduces consumption.

Of course, fuel is so cheap that you need to raise taxes significantly for them to have any effect. After all, fuel is just a small fraction of the total cost of owning a car.

I think you need to look at whether alternatives exist. All cities that have a congestion charge have a well developed public transport system, as far as know. So making driving into the city more expensive may nudge people into switching to public transport. How big the effect may be is another issue. Poor people also often already take public transport into cities (in Europe at least), not least because even without congestion charge, parking charges are usually very high.

Tobacco is neither here nor there because, obviously, people do have the choice not to smoke.

On the other hand, when you're in an area with little to no public transport and the only way for you to go to work or go to the supermarket, or do anything really, is to drive there is no alternative. When you're a delivery driver there is no alternative. When you're a tradesperson there is no alternative.

There is no alternative because EVs either do not really exist (electric utility vehicles only start to be available) or are way beyond what you can afford and you do need a vehicle.

Basically in France this was seen as Macron's "let them eat cake" moment with well-off people in Paris (with its world-class public transport system) deciding that everyone in the country could "just" drive less or change car.

I don't buy that argument. Join a car pool, buy an electric scooter, or a moped if fuel taxes bothers you so much. In general, I think it is a tragedy that we worry so much about the problems of those poor, poor motorists when our beds are burning.

>Slapping an extra tax on them without a viable alternative does not reduce emissions, it only makes people poorer.

The CO2 tax changes what is viable and what isn't.