Sure, I'm 100% in favor of a wealth tax/cap, but I think that's going to be a lot less effective at lowering emissions than targeting the biggest sources of emissions.
Side story: during Covid, teachers at a local school wanted mandates for all the students (the people least at risk of actually getting very sick), but they pushed very hard not to have to get it themselves - i.e. they wanted all the benefits of having a vaccinated population around them, but they were unwilling to take the risk on themselves (they lost this battle btw)
Not to conflate the issues, but its the same principle - don't make me(the public) do something that you (the ones in charge) are not willing to do yourself.
I think selling fixing the climate as a sacrifice is a non-starter. If you're framing it that way, you've already lost. We should align incentives such that fixing the climate is also an improvement for people. That means subsidizing green solutions (EVs should be cheaper than gas cars), replacing polluting power plants with renewables improves the surrounding community (less immediate air pollution, noise) and users of the power (renewables are already cheaper than fossil fuel plants). No one needs to make sacrifices to fix this.
In other words, instead of worrying about what some rich jag-offs are doing, focus on how we can turn fixing climate change into a win for everybody. (And make those rich jag-offs pay for it ;) )
If no one needs to make sacrifices, then this should happen by default basically and we'd have to actively work to prevent it from happening.
* In this case, the sacrifices come from competitors/substitutes to the things being funded or subsidized, consumers who are ineligible for a particular subsidy program (but for which the demand is increased for the product by those eligible), and of course, often from net taxpayers.