Once you identify which is easier (to implement and/or to monetize), it makes an unfortunate kind of sense.
There was always a lot of talk about carbon taxes, but since we're somewhat past that point now, what about a carbon capture rebate as well? If you can make money from thin air, I'm sure carbon capture technology and industry would boom. If a company can't avoid carbon tax from it's process, which some products simply can't, it then has to offset that tax with carbon capture rebates to be profitable and exist in society. If the math doesn't make sense, they don't make the money, so sad, tears in the unseasonable rain.
The reason you don't litter, dump used oil down the toilet, buy conflict diamonds and complain when Nike gets caught using sweatshop labor isn't because some jackbooted thug will put you in a cage, it's because you know it's the right thing to do. Sure there might be some laws you begrudgingly put up with because of the risk vs reward but making a lot of people do that at scale that doesn't work well.
Convincing people to voluntarily do what you want is far cheaper than violence or threat of violence and it comes with a much lower risk of you being shot in the hole you just dug.
But even on an individual level, money is still a huge guiding factor for society in general, so taxing certain items even at the individual sale level could influence things. Putting fuel in your car? 10% carbon tax, both you and the corporation paid a tax, that goes into the coffer to pay for other kinds of more active carbon reduction programs.
> The reason you don't litter, dump used oil down the toilet, buy conflict diamonds and complain when Nike gets caught using sweatshop labor isn't because some jackbooted thug will put you in a cage, it's because you know it's the right thing to do.
People do all these things, knowingly ignoring all the externalities of their actions. The world is full of decent human beings, and yet the above is still true. Just look at the roads, we're all thoroughly aware that cars pollute our cities even in the immediate tense, let alone long term, yet the roads are still full.
Let's not blame the individual for industrial pollution anyway, since the majority of emissions are still from industrial activity. People have marginal agency on changing that. What's a consumer going to do about bunker fuel in shipping ships? How am I going to influence the processes used in steel mills?
The issue is that there's no guarantee that the 10% extra burden is going to green initiatives. It ends up going to the ever ballooning government budget and pays for pension funds for underperforming government employees.
In the same sense, corporations are committing violence on us also, by destroying the planet that we all live on.
Funny, the first three are covered by laws and regulations - local and international. I'm less certain about the conflict diamonds, but I believe there are regulations around those too.
> Saying the only lever we have is regulation is just saying the only lever we have is violence but with an extra intermediary steps
That's because there are enough people who value money and power that they will never do the right thing unless forced. The tragedy of the commons, as it is.
The Meditations on Moloch paper covers quite a bit of this.