Perhaps the threats that were met with decisive action were better understood. What decisive actions should be taken in this case?
- impose a maximum limit on size, weight and fuel consumption of cars, ban SUVs and pickup trucks (and no, a tax won't work because the rich will simply buy their "freedom"). Exceptions only upon proof of need (e.g. commercial or farming usage).
- ban all inner-country flights of less than 2 hours duration (this one is not that applicable to the US but more towards Europe)
- improve passenger high speed rail networks in accessibility, affordability and speed
- improve (or, in some places, create) usable public transport systems to reduce the need for cars
- entirely ban naval cruise ships unless fueled by renewable fuel
- construct immense amounts of solar and wind electricity generation, invest into storage mechanisms and power-to-gas
- impose bans or limitations on concrete for construction (8% of global CO2 emissions result out of the manufacturing of concrete!)
- ban "fast fashion", impose durability requirements on clothing
- force all manufacturers to provide spare parts, 3D designs and tooling needed for repairs, no matter what kind of thing
- impose per-capita meat consumption quotas. Yes, this is communism-style, but we cannot sustainably continue with mass animal farming at the scale we are at.
If the tax is enough to cover CO2 sequestration, where is the problem?
> entirely ban naval cruise ships unless fueled by renewable fuel
Why not the same exemption for sub 2-hour flights?
Social unrest, plain and simple. When the rich can continue their lives as usual and only the poors have to rein in their life style, there will eventually be riots. We're already seeing social unrest with the election results for the 45th in the US and the very near election of le Pen in France that runs on precisely this ideological framework.
Besides, we need to reduce the total CO2 emissions to keep the 2°C target, not just keeping the current emission amount.
> Why not the same exemption for sub 2-hour flights?
Same as above, plus the reduction in noise for the people living next to airports, and (more an issue in Europe) reduce the amount of space that is needed for airports. A high speed train is way more efficient in terms of energy, CO2 emissions and required staffing than an airplane is.
Because the technology doesn't yet exist. You are banking your children's future on a technology that may never come to pass.
Putting humanity in the environment could be banned. But we're seeing a trend in the other direction.