What I am trying to get at is: the income tax, for example, exists so that governments can finance their operations. A heavy tax on cigarettes, on the other hand, is meant to change the population's behavior - to push smokers to quit. The extra revenue is useful but not the main point of the legislation. The goal is to reduce the number of smokers.
Such as it would be with a carbon tax. As someone thoroughly concerned with the state of our habitat, I would be thrilled to see a carbon tax here in the US - even if the politicians took the extra money raised by the tax and burned it. The point of a carbon tax is to reduce carbon emissions; raised monies are a secondary benefit.
Because the is the most cost effective and simplest solution. It has a proven track record with the Montreal protocol: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol
I'm certainly not wedded to the idea, but there doesn't seem to be any other viable options on the table.
I would love to be proven a fool, but where you see an eagerness to tax I see a lack of free market solutions for tragedies of the commons such as the atmosphere.
The difficulty is you need to do this in a coordinated way otherwise you just end up shifting your carbon intensive industries overseas. This is why reaching a global agreement is so important.
The R&D thing is a red herring, business will respond to the economic situation it finds itself in.
One solution. While a small footprint, it is bigger than the comment section combined (assuming we aren't millionaires with private jets and yachts). When politicians and celebrities promote enacting a carbon tax that reduces our economic activity, while having a negligible effect on them.