If societies answer to climate change is "Don't punish/impact poor people who negatively effect the environment" Then we might as well just pack our bags for Mars now.

Over the next 100-200 years, every (poor) 3rd world country is going to continue to get more and more industrialized and impact the environment more and more. Maybe I'm 100% off here but i'd be surprised if we (rich countries) can lower our emissions enough to offset the increases elsewhere in the world. And limiting the increases of "their" impact will directly effect "their" quality of life improvements unless "we" step in and aid them with more complex (expensive?) solutions. Likely at the expense of any domestic improvements that could be done without added cost of that aid.

> If societies answer to climate change is "Don't punish/impact poor people who negatively effect the environment" Then we might as well just pack our bags for Mars now.

Dealing with climate change will include costs and sacrifices that affect individuals and societies. Politicians unwilling to deal with these costs, for ideological and / or electability reasons, will not in my opinion be likely to advocate for the measures necessary to address climate change.

(Also, I'm assuming that when the billionaires go to Mars they won't make the mistake that is common in Stephen Baxter's Scifi novels, where the colonisers always seem to include a subpopulation of disaffected criminals / lowlifes / etc who inevitably mutiny.)

There's an easy solution to that though. You redistribute all the money from a carbon tax back to the people, either equally to everyone, or better, based on income.

We already know that wealthy people generate the most carbon. If that activity was taxed and then the money was given to poorer people who can't afford to transition to clean energy, it would still be a net win, because it will reduce emissions while making sure it doesn't unfairly affect the poor.

That's what they do in Canada. It's awesome but a lot of people hate it because they're being told they should by the usual suspects.

The US would most likely invest the money, either partially or fully into the war machine.

People like to rip on the US war machine, but as far as percent of GDP, the US isn't even the biggest spender. Also, the entire world benefits from the US army, which helps protect global trade routes. For example the US patrols for pirates off the coast of Africa, protecting ships that are taking goods from one country to another in which the US has no involvement in any of it.

>but as far as percent of GDP, the US isn't even the biggest spender

The great thing about statistics is you can maneuver them to support your conclusion. Here's some that support mine: in real numbers, "The United States spends more on national defense than China, India, Russia, United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Germany, France, Japan, South Korea, Italy, and Australia — combined."

https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_defense-comparison

That's a lot of money to fight pirates.