[arb-spreads]

Sweden has similar density to the US. Both countries have >80% of the population living in urban areas. Same goes for standard of living, with slightly lower GDP in Sweden and slightly higher quality of life.

Higher prices are one of the best ways to reduce consumption. Imagine of clothes were suddenly taxed at 100% - people would presumably purchase less clothing.

[nightski]

I mean I am sure the poor will suffer a lot more than the rich with climate change but to force it with a tax seems kind of twisted in a way.

[arb-spreads]

Yes - a classic public goods problem. Lots of global inequities with minimal interest in solving. The average standard of living is substantially lower than developed countries, and global resource expenditure would skyrocket if parity occurred.

[nightski]

Inequity is inevitable. But that doesn't mean we should create tax policy to exacerbate it further. You really didn't say whether the carbon tax was effective in Sweden either. You just said they had lower emissions than the U.S. But that was probably true before the tax as well.