seems like flamebait
Can you explain your reasoning here?
If you do a cash transfer to low-income individuals funded by the tax, it is entirely possible to make the tax progressive or neutral instead. (and it still does all of the important market-pricing action things its supposed to)
But it can be tricky - some poor people use more gas than others. And if we want to give an extra cash transfer to the cleaner who starts work before public transit starts running, that's going to get complex to administer.
The difference in emissions between small and big polluters (them being people or companies) is abysmal, a low contributor could easily double/triple its footprint and still come out much lower than the big ones.
I think a sensible solution is cap and trade at the country level and let it trickle down from there.
A system like "cap-and-trade" is sustainable politically precisely because it benefits a few carbon traders who can make huge profits from the system. They can feed back 0.1% of their profits to politicians to keep their privileges.
The rest of us (who depend on this planet to live on) face a collective action problem where everybody has to lower carbon emissions. For instance the US has high per capita emissions but still is responsible for only 15% of global emissions. If the US had a breakthrough and stopped emitting carbon tomorrow it wouldn't solve the problem unless countries responsible for 80% or so of emissions also did.
The structure of it is that there is always (and maybe will be) some major country that takes a contemptuous attitude about climate change (say the US under Trump) that gives other countries (say Germany) cover to talk a good game but take no action.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action