> Any evidence for this? IMO "Sanctimonious environmentalists" only care that consumption reduces. Whether that's voluntary or due to being priced out by carbon taxes is irrelevant.

The New York Times said that their article pointing out that (most) recycling has higher environmental costs than landfill attracted the most complaints of any article for at least 10 years.

My old professor doesn't get invited to climate conferences anymore because he ran some serious research into whether geoengineering approaches were feasible.

There is definitely a large constituency of hair-shirt environmentalism that cares more about how much you're suffering for the sacrifices you're making than about how big an actual effect you're having.

It's pretty much a tautology--I'm defining "sanctimonious environmentalist" as one who makes showy personal sacrifices for esteem. If emissions decrease because manufacturing processes become more efficient, then their sacrifices were for naught and the lifestyle they've been pushing on others becomes irrelevant (or decreases in relevance).

> then their sacrifices were for naught and the lifestyle they've been pushing on others becomes irrelevant

And I'm arguing the opposite. In the short-term at least, costs will rise and people will be forced to cut back.

I agree that's the short-term effect (although a carbon tax will likely start out small and increase over time so as to minimize unpopular effects), but in my experience this analysis is too sophisticated for most of this "sanctimonious environmentalist" group. I.e., people who tend to believe that the environment hinges on converting people to vegan cyclists are not likely to understand economics well enough to understand a carbon tax. This is a big and unflattering generalization for expedience sake, so I'm trusting readers to understand the larger point and not get mired in "this is a generalization!" counterarguments.