It's very important to consider the impact on marginalized groups and offset any impact through transfers.

Here are some options: - Provide relocation subsidies to areas with public transit - Increase public transit - Treat bike lanes as first class infrastructure - Provide direct gas assistance and carbon tax rebates for low income earners

This tracks for cities and looks good, but also looks like just a start.

What about rural areas? They have higher logistical costs, so cost of goods would go up. Things being sold to rural businesses also require someone to traffic their way out there. Point of reference: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/world/europe/france-fuel-...

There's no silver bullet to solve this problem. If there were, we would have already done it by now. The government will need to weigh the cost of subsidizing rural residences with that of other policies. The outlook for rural doesn't look great either way, many rural areas will not be able to afford the costs of climate change.

Sounds like a policy that won't pass muster then. Making things work for marginalized groups and rural areas is pretty top priority, unless significant and warranted backlash is to be expected.

The US isn't France and a set of transfers is a real solution. But I have no doubt that politicians will ignore the gravity of the situation to pander to their voter base. The huge cost of climate capture (likely 50% of our gdp) is probably a policy that won't pass the muster either. The fact is that it is far cheaper to reduce emissions today than try to capture emissions tomorrow.

Actually, we just need to make things work for the wealthy. If we can do that, all of these changes will go through overnight.

Arguably that's what happened in France in 2018 and that resulted in riots across the nation highlighting their apparent classism.

In the US, it works a little differently. The rural poor do their best to vote for easing the lives of large landowners and millionaires.