Western countries tend to subsidize the basic needs of the poor. I'm sure if it came to it and it became a big issue they would get some governmental aid just like with transit or foodstamps or housing or education or healthcare anything else that slips out of reach for the poor.

If we are going to decide some carbon emissions more essential than others. Why not just exclude them from the carbon taxation to begin with?

Because wealthier groups and individuals can afford to pay taxes that impoverished people can't? There are all kinds of subsidies for the poor today where wealthier people pay a higher price. There is precedent here for that.

> Because wealthier groups and individuals can afford to pay taxes that impoverished people can't?

Yes, definitely. I could afford paying 50% tax on flights. Most people in the world could not pay 50% more for their transportation.

The problem with a carbon tax is that it values all emissions equally. But on a global scale, some emissions are more essential than others. (Food, shelter, transportation to work etc)

That's the benefit of it isn't it? Its supposed to force paradigm shifts in how we fuel our supply chain. It's supposed to not maximize profit in the near term. It's not good that our most basic needs are so reliant on greenhouse gas emissions and if we continue to subsidize the emissions of this market with our health and ecology nothing will ever change.

I agree with you that the whole economy needs to shift eventually. But as I see it, the most utilitarian way to reduce emissions would be to reduce the overconsumption of carbon emissions in the rich world. The market will not produce the "correct signal" to achieve this because of the enormous income disparity in the global economy.

Example: India vs Us carbon emissions per Capita is 4 times higher than India GDP vs Us GDP per Capita.

Any price increase on carbon will be felt 4x more by an Indian than by an American.

Every carbon tax proposal includes a section that redistributes the money to the people (with poor people getting more of that redistributed money).

Could the solution be graduated luxury carbon taxes on unnecessary consumption, like private jets, regular flights, non critical home AC, Christmas lights, PC gaming, etc?

Just tax everything the amount it costs to clean up the pollution it causes, and then use that money to clean up the pollution.

Subsidize the poor as we've always done.

Maybe change the way we subsidize them. The negative income tax can be used for basically any form of pigovian tax revenue.

Yes, please. Low tax on essentials. High tax on the overconsumption of carbon intensive economic activity in the rich world.

Market value says very little about true value of goods and services globally. Why should we let it decide how to prioritize the little carbon emission we can afford?