Asking corporations to track their supply chain for their carbon usage is a complete waste of time. All the information a firm needs is already reflected in the price of its goods/services.

This is why economists are in near universal agreement that a carbon tax is the optimal policy. It’s dead simple to implement as it only requires tracking the sales of producers.

> By 2026, those companies will have to publicly disclose how much carbon is produced by their operations and electricity use.

Basically this puts a reporting burden on everyone instead of the place where the carbon is sourced - probably an oil or gas company.

This is a very good point, you should have stopped here instead of devolving into a purity spiral by attacking somebody who's obviously coming from a similar point of view: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purity_spiral

The entire premise of Pigouvian taxes is that they force consumers to pay the external cost, not let them optionally avoid them. This leads to substitution effects lowering consumption of the pollutant.

All market participants must be subject to that price or you introduce arbitrage opportunity.

Information alone is not enough.

Carbon taxes (Pigouvian taxes) are a solution to the problem of pricing externalities by incentivizing alternatives. The tax creates a wedge where consumers choose alternatives.

Incentives matter and produce better outcomes by changing behavior.