Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just put a carbon tax on everything that has environmental externalities, it's as simple as that, it doesn't make sense to target a specific industry, especially one that uses stranded/renewable energy.
broad-based consumption taxes are the best theoretical response, but politically no one is going to impose them at the levels needed to discourage consumption, and they almost always get perverted in their application with carve-outs and exemptions. Plus where does that money go? At best it's an inefficient recycling paradigm when what we really need is an at-source reduction in consumption in the first place.
This seems like one of those Overton-window true-if-and-only-if-the-media-say-it's-true things, like the supposed taboo against vaccine challenge trials which was recently falsified in a poll.
> where does that money go?
To the low-income people who are supposed to be the insuperable political obstacle to carbon taxes in the first place?
Politics is hard, yes, but this Overton-window kind of reasoning just drags at any real solution to anything. It's not worth any allegiance.