While the idea sounds good on paper, practically it amounts to a regressive tax on consumption which will just dig us into a deeper economic hole. We need to go back to the tax code that existed after the great depression for about 50 years: a 70-90% top marginal rate in a progressive system that taxes idle wealth hoarding and speculative casino capitalism as opposed to the real economy, consumption and labor. the reason for this is not ideological and it has little to do with global warming: it's the only way to grow the GDP without having to borrow from China and disenfranchise and lock up large parts of the industrial underclass like the US has been doing for the last 30 years
+Dan Miller , I think I have come up with an additional solution. Hear me out on this:
Extracting salt from the ocean, using that water to water trees in Co2 heavy areas, and putting all of this additional salt on the market. This would create an international job market, and would decrease the value of salt, meaning that we would find more ways to use it. At the same time, we would be re-stabilizing the Earth by planting more trees. If we put this into motion now, alongside your plan, we would technically be able to reverse the climate change problem in a couple hundred years. There are only three main problems with this however:
1. The initial costs.
2. Getting people to work these jobs.
3. The salt-to-blank scenario.
The solution to all of these would be to just charge/ reward more for salt usage/ inventions.
Also, with the value of salt going down, fast food companies would struggle, as a large portion of their income would vanish.
Basically, fix global warming,
create more jobs, and make the food industry encourage healthier eating.