> Some people will choose to fly, others will choose to have faster washing cycles...
And all will damage the climate? "Increase energy prices" just means that rich people will be able to continue to engage in undesirable behaviour while the poor will not. Why is that a desirable income? Why should a poor person have to pay more to heat their home in winter so that a rich person can wash their clothes more quickly? Not all energy use is equal.
Sure, there are solutions for this. Luxury taxes, tiered use (first 4L of water per day free!), properly priced externalities (e.g. a Corvette is taxed more than a Peugeot because there's more CO2 exhaust, cow meat is taxed more than chicken because of CH4... companies will adjust, new tech will be developed), ... but yeah, unless you straight hate the rich, then the rich will be able to do more things than the poor - that's kind of the point of being rich (and unless you ban all "undesirable" behaviour, that also means the rich will be able to do more of that than the poor).
I'm mainly just against the idea that shorter wash cycles are less desirable than airplane rides.
But it doesn't solve the pollution problem. Why should a person be allowed to pollute more just because they have more money? Why is their convenience more important than everyone else's well being?
Why should a person be allowed to pollute more just because they have more money?
As long as we make them pay a significantly large enough multiple of the externality costs they're inflicting I'm OK with that, especially if that money then gets reinvested into further solving the problem.
And all will damage the climate? "Increase energy prices" just means that rich people will be able to continue to engage in undesirable behaviour while the poor will not. Why is that a desirable income? Why should a poor person have to pay more to heat their home in winter so that a rich person can wash their clothes more quickly? Not all energy use is equal.