Not shifting the burden to individuals who contribute almost nothing compared to giant corporations, And doing werid things like banning meat, imagine if they did the opposite, they hike vegetable prices because you don't eat enough meat.
If this happens(the article doesn't say this has anything to do with climate change specifically) it would be just a giant distraction from Norway's role in climate change by producing Oil.
Presumably these giant corporations are after the profits that can be booked by serving the demand. The question is how much of that demand is ultimately attributable to demands generated by the behaviors and wants of the lay people, even if they are not the proximate cause.
Avoiding externalities is a thing. I would rather have that loop hole plugged instead of a persistent socialization of risks and losses and privatization of the gains, now that would be a free market.
So you'd be OK with full-on tyranny? Because there's never going to be a short list of massive problems in the world to deal with.
> You're also shifting the discussion from climate change
Not shifting anything, I was giving an example of how certain items could be taxed by linking them to current problems. You can easily extend that example to other things beyond climate change.
Yes, you live on a finite world with a lot of people and many things you choose to do affects other people too. Now, you may choose to stick your fingers in your ears and shout "LALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" and straw-man everything you don't like as "full-on tyranny" if you wish, but that's not how it works and at that point you're no longer really part of any constructive dialogue. There is always a balance, and it's rarely easy.