But the point of the question is that maybe it isn't all that costly in the first place, given that we have to tax something anyway in order to raise revenue. Those other taxes have downsides too...

@present, there are proposals to introduce a carbon tax and to distribute the revenue equally among all citizens. People with above-average CO2 generation would be net payers, people with below-average CO2 generation would be net recipients.

@present Sure, but the government revenues from those taxes are steadily increasing over time. We want the "revenues" from carbon taxes to fall. There were other taxes that were supposed to decrease consumption (everything from tobacco or alcohol to gasoline), but it never quite worked out that way, and it creates a conflict of interest - the government doesn't actually want the consumption to drop, because it's important for the revenue (even if decreased consumption decreased expenditures, as is sometimes claimed, that would lag, perhaps for decades, the drop in revenues).

@Luaan what evidence is there to support your claim that "it never quite worked out that way"? Is there any evidence that governments cynically started encouraging people to smoke because they wanted the revenue?

@present How do you prove a negative? Do you have evidence it ever did work out that way? I didn't claim governments started encouraging people to smoke, just that there's a conflict of interest involved - are you disputing that?

Considering how slowly those proposed carbon taxes are being phased in, kids do pay the carbon taxes. And although Fridays4Future is specifically initiated by schoolchildren and young students, this is not generally true for the climate movement (see Ende Gelände, Extinction Rebellion, 350.Org, and many others). As for the term NIMBY, I've only ever seen this used for opposition too physical developments, not for taxation.

@gerrit what do you call NIMBYs that support taxing, but only if it's someone else?

@Luaan you can't twist it around like that. You made a universal claim ("it never worked out that way") and now you're arguing that that's impossible to prove! At least, you could give specific examples where it failed to work out. Also, yes, I dispute that there's necessarily a conflict of interest involved. There's a conflict only if you assume that government, as an anthropomorphized entity, "wants" to be big and have a lot of revenue. But a well-functioning government would represent its citizens and take only as much revenue as needed (and at least some politicians act this way).

@JonathanReezSupportsMonica I don't know. I'm not saying it's wrong, I just haven't seen the term in this context.

@present I seem to remember reading (probably 10+ years ago) an Indonesian minister saying people should smoke more so that the government can raise more revenue, but I can't find the news at the time.

@Luaan People in Western Europe and North America smoke a lot less than decades ago, this has correlated with increases in prices, but there have been other measures taken in this period as well, so although it's probably impossible to conclusively prove causation, it seems plausible that price increases have contributed as one of the factors of a reduce in tobacco consumption. To prevent the conflict of interest such revenues could (and sometimes are) be legally earmarked for specific purposes; German carbon tax will be used to increase commuter tax rebates.

@gerrit That's really stupid (overall), because people would be better off if they paid the smoking tax and didn't smoke, than if they paid the smoking tax and smoked. The government would be better off by raising general taxes than by encouraging people to smoke.

@present People still drink, even though there's alcohol taxes. People still smoke, even though there's tobacco taxes. People still drive cars, even though there's gas taxes. Are you disputing that? As for the conflict of interest, it's obviously a conflict of individual politicians, not some "anthropomorphized entity".

@gerrit If prices were that important, you wouldn't expect poor people to be the biggest consumers of alcohol and tobacco. But they are, even though they have the most to gain from stopping (compared to their total income). Of course, increased prices probably had some effect - but it's really hard to see. And for many of the smokers around me, that effect was mostly about getting their fit without taxes anyway - often without even doing something illegal. Regardless, I don't think we need to dig any deeper into this; I think my point is quite obvious and self-evident.

@Luaan again you're engaging in various fallacies, including attacking a different position than the relevant one (straw man -- of course I don't dispute that people still do things even if there's a tax on them, the question is whether it reduces it) and simply asserting that your point is self-evident when clearly, from all the discussion, it is not!

@present The question isn't whether it reduces it at all. The question is whether the reduction is worth the effort and all the drawbacks. I never said there's no effect, that's your strawman. Carbon taxes might have some effect on carbon emissions. But so far, they don't seem to. Increasing the taxes might increase the effects, but it also increases the drawbacks - including the obvious drawbacks like increases in illegal activity, bankruptcy, inequality caused by various exemptions (e.g. agriculture).

@Luaan I didn't say you said there is no effect (you're making a strawman strawman argument!). I said you turned the question into whether taxes eliminate the activity, which is not the question. (Though earlier you did say "There were other taxes that were supposed to decrease consumption (everything from tobacco or alcohol to gasoline), but it never quite worked out that way.") What do you mean that "bankruptcy" is an "obvious" drawback? Bankruptcy of carbon-dependent entities? I did mention underground activity, shocks to the economy, and fairness concerns in the original question.