Neither of you have provided an alternative to carbon tax but we'll have to wait for bigpoppa to reply since it was his claim.
While we wait I'll address the new distortions and obfuscations introduced below. But it would be nice if we could focus on one question at a time instead of gaslighting every discussion of progressive values that's posted.
What? Carbon output is well below 1990 levels today, this was done with regulation. Tougher laws on cars and trucks, tougher laws on new buildings, and tougher emission laws on heavy industrial use of carbon based fuels did that -- you can thank the EPA mostly, there was absolutely nothing progressive the Liberals in Ontario did with respect to carbon.
Cheap windows for those renovating expensive houses -check. Rebates on Teslas - check. Microfit energy contracts at 7 to 20x market rates for unneeded energy thet is routinely dumped - check. Delaying decommissioning of dirty coal plants by years due to mismanaged gas and nuclear retrofits - check. Claiming a huge carbon victory for finally closing those plants - check.
Ontario Liberals used carbon taxes for general revenue and political boondoggling - nothing more.
What "well below 1990 levels"?
Not the US, which is above 1990 levels:
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#carbon-dioxide
Not Canada, which is above 1990 levels:
https://www.canada.ca/en/environmen...ntal-indicators/greenhouse-gas-emissions.html
Maybe you meant Ontario, which is 10% below 1990 levels:
https://www.canada.ca/en/environmen...reenhouse-gas-emissions.html#summary-details1
Ontario, Quebec, NB, and NS are the only provinces below 1990 levels. BC has also changed course in the past 10 years. But you say we need to thank the EPA for these reductions, not progressive action? I can't wait to hear that rationale. But what I expect is that you'll go on and fabricate some other truth and hope to drown out the signal with more noise.
I don't want to start a meaningless dispute, but just in my opinion, the carbon tax doesn't solve the issue. For example, based on data for 2016 from US EPA, electricity was the source of 34% of carbon dioxide and transportation another 34%. So, what carbon tax will solve? Can it solve the electricity problem? I just don't see how e.g. small and mid business can switch e.g. to solar power at the moment. The government can solve it. They can just build nuclear power plants and reduce the use of fossil fuels (yes, I know that nuclear power has downsides, but looks like more and more scientists think that right now it can be the solution for some regions). Same for transportation, we still need to transport goods from A to B. If there is no alternative then this tax just increases gas prices, nothing more..
I mean, the carbon tax doesn't provide a solution to the issue (very serious issue actually) and doesn't provide an alternative to "dirty" energy sources.. At the same time, there are options to address these issues and reduce greenhouse gases. However, based on my understanding, the carbon tax was never designed to address these issues. It was designed to increase the cost for everything and hope that people will find a solution on their own.
As a bonus fact, did you know that cows produce almost 7 times more greenhouse gas than chicken (for the same amount of protein)?
You're right, carbon taxes provide no solution. But that's actually their strength. With a carbon tax, it enables solutions to be provided by scientists, researchers, innovators, entrepreneurs, and consumers, instead of being dictated to us by politicians. That's simply because alternatives to fossil fuels cost more. But there are plenty of alternatives, which I'll touch on below.
You're also right about US emissions sources:
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#carbon-dioxide
So let's use the two largest sources of pollution that you mentioned as examples.
The emissions from electricity production could be replaced by nuclear as you say, but fossil fuels are chosen instead because they're cheaper. Not only would a carbon tax change that value equation in favour of nuclear, it would also make it much easier politically to 'sell' a widespread carbon tax across several jurisdictions than to 'sell' the costs of nuclear because for this one expensive project the government decided to try and save the planet. And of course no private company would take it upon themselves to spend more if they didn't have to.
There are other alternatives out there too. Who's to say nuclear is the only way forward? Solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, could all have their place in the energy market but we don't know which is best suited for what purpose unless we put a price on carbon and let the market decide between them. Maybe for some application, NG is the solution rather than coal? The market system is perfect for determining these things as long as all costs are accounted for.
The second largest source of CO2 pollution you pointed out is transportation. Same problem; alternatives are more expensive. But there are plenty of alternatives that a carbon tax could enable, including one I posted a while back about a viable process to draw CO2 from the air to make synthetic fuel.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com...g-liquid-fuel-carbon-capture-neutral-science/
It's energy intensive but it's almost carbon neutral. All it needs to be viable is volume efficiencies and a carbon tax so that its price can be lower than the price of fossil fuels. It would be a great solution for maritime and aeronautical applications since electric power isn't a viable option in those sectors. It may even make a viable solution for drivers versus going electric, but who's to say? I'll tell you who; drivers! With a proper carbon tax we can all decide for ourselves which is the most cost-effective solution for our needs. Just as with electricity production, you have to let the market mechanism work its magic but it requires full costing to be known and applied. That means a carbon tax.
Same can be said for food production. Will lab meat taste different from animal meat? If it does, should those who prefer the carbon-intensive meat pay more for their choice? Of course.
To paraphrase the great and wonderful Rob Ford: "Carbon tax, carbon tax, CARBON TAX!"