That seems like a good proposal, but it should have been considered from the start to get people onboard: not scaring them into thinking they'll end up just paying more.

I'm not saying there's an easy solution, but it does seem like they're doing this upside down, and it will create nothing but resentment, anxiety and stress.

This must not be a burden on people who can't afford it, even if they are a major part of the problem. Make it cheaper to get a new EV, then to buy a second hand diesel car -> that's how you will fix the issue, and it's not by making diesel and diesel cars even more expensive.

Yeah, the idea is hardly new. It's at least twenty years old. At this point I'm cynical enough to entertain the thought that politicians actively want carbon pricing to fail so they set up in ways that will maximize the bad effects for the voters while minimizing the bad effects for the biggest polluters.

Really? Paying to people for doing harm but less than their neighbors? That's ridiculous.

Everybody emitting less than their neighbors is a differential equation where you end up with everybody emitting negative infinity carbon dioxide. That seems like a fine result.