[whatshisface]

Option one: build solar panels. Option two: poor people no longer drive, and their standard of living falls. Capitalism, if given a pricing signal to "reduce emissions," will pick a completely merciless combination of the two.

[jnurmine]

Option three: improve mass transit, to move more people per fuel unit.

Option four: reduce need to drive around by bringing services closer to people and promoting remote working etc.

Option five: remove need to drive for shopping and such by creating "bus for stuff", you order things and get them delivered (near) home.

Option six: convert existing vehicles to electric (probably needs some form of battery innovation and might not be cheap even if price is offset by the raw metals salvaged from the engine).

Just a few examples of the obvious options. The truly clever smart options take more analysis (and a smarter mind than mine) to figure out.

The point: the search space for "reduce emissions (driving) because price of gas is insane" is very large, going full solar or poor don't drive are not really the only options.

[umanwizard]

Well, good. Our collective standard of living needs to fall in order for the planet to survive.

If you don’t want it to hit poor people specifically you can subsidize the tax for them.

[whatshisface]

Well, there's always option three: keep things going and pray for a technical miracle. That's the default choice and probably the road we're on.