If we can remove carbon from the atmosphere or offset it, than a tax equal to that expense during production and used to offset should achieve the outcomes you want. (Ignoring how many programs are poorly built for correctly achieving this real offset).

Taxes are unpopular. The policy of Enough can be done voluntarily. In fact, I've toyed with the idea of starting a company who's employment agreement requires agreeing to the conditions of Enough. I think it would even be useful for individuals, in private, to consider what their own Enough number is.

Also, taxes don't try to curb unbounded greed and growth. The Enough policy acknowledges unbounded growth is actually the biggest problem.

Ten mil is way higher than that. It's probably more like a 50k or lower income with no wealth.

For me and for a lot of people I know, this would be a significant downgrade and I'd rather compete to maintain or improve my quality of life.

I don't have ten mil, but if everyone lived like me, we would be buggered.

You don't know that. It hasn't been tried, and I daresay you don't even understand what I'm proposing.

One neoliberal capitalist way to implement the Enough system is to make agreement to it a condition of your employment, and also a condition of your investment. You agree to retire and divest as soon as you earn a certain amount. At work, you vacate the role and let someone else try it out. With your investments, you sell and let someone else be a stakeholder.

Putting a hard, generous upper limit on wealth accumulation is not even close to Marxism.

Agreed, but you need to realize that one of the symptoms of the disease is the destruction of global civilization as we know it. That's not something we're going to see tomorrow, or in 5 years, but in 10-20 years, if we continue on with the status quo, I would say it's quite likely.

> I think it could satisfy both hard-core capitalists AND environmentalists

Unfortunately not. All the things you mention (air travel, billionaires, etc.) are things that are literally responsible for accelerating the destruction right now.

As far as "draconian" goes, we had 50 years to get something done. We're down to about 5 years before we start seeing the first tier of real consequences now. Draconian is pretty much where it's at for the next several decades, if we're thinking realistically.

Trouble with climate is my carbon footprint would likely go up in retirement rather than down, from the time and resources available to travel. Walking around my town and puttering around waiting to die isn’t my ideal retirement; doing that while having the money to do 10x more fun things is worse not better.

(Side note: I don’t expect to ever retire with $10M in even then-current dollars unless we quickly go Weimar in inflation terms.)

This is also one of my pet peeves with the "degrowth" movement's solution to climate change. Essentially they want to alleviate the problems not by innovating to do more with less, but to have people do less. This would mean less work for everyone, but obviously less work means more leisure time. Unless every decides to take up meditating, they're going to consume more during their leisure time, creating not only more work, but also more of every type of negative externality.

Also curious is that these compromises are almost never framed as a temporary adjustment to humanity's consumption until the innovation catches up. Would think that's more palatable, but instead it usually seems like "we need to stop consuming like this, forever".

However, Elon Musk shouldn't exist. So how do we stop that? My proposal is a cap on revenue per employee before a company must go public, and a cap on individual ownership of any company. So for example maximum $5m per employee revenue before you have to list, then a single person or entity can own at most 10% of a company.

This means once you hit that figure, you have to list the company and cash out, and let other people step in and take not only responsibility but also share the revenue and ownership more equitably.

This was explicitly the goal of early capitalist philosophy. Adam Smith envisioned a world where growth came to an end as societies expanded to fill their "economic space".

Smith misinterpreted human desires and motivations; enough is never enough as long as our potential future adversary is also accumulating wealth. Economic arms races ensure there will never be enough.