No credible way to decouple production/consumption from emissions has been found. So no, we do need to start curbing consumption, especially among people in the top wealth quantiles (because they consume the most).
They still aren't decoupled from emissions. IIRC Emissions actually grow faster than GDP, so it's actually worse than a simple coupling: it's a feedback coupling.
All studies that have looked at seeming decoupling of emissions from the economy have found that they decoupling was due to outsourcing the emissions to other countries. Markets cannot solve emissions as long as value is a function of production.
Countries that tax emissions should simply levy a proportional tariff on goods imported from countries that do not tax emissions.
Wouldn't this eliminate the incentive to outsource the emissions? You could even add some margin to the tariff such that it is more economical for countries to tax the emissions themselves rather than pay the tariff.
You do that by increasing the cost of consumption. Everyone has, even wealthy people, have a price point beyond which something is too expensive for them.
I agree, and what better way than to impose a tax on consumption after X dollars. Or perhaps even a general luxury tax for goods that aren't absolutely necessary for your welfare.
Still better would be to start taxing natural resource usage, or even setting quotas with strict penalties. But it's hard to see politicians going along with it and I don't know if it can be monitored sensibly.
I'd go with taxing fossil fuel extraction. Every barrel of oil, liter of nat gas, or ton of coal is taxed. The revenue from these taxes should go towards either a) carbon capture or b) tax credits for lower-income households or c) UBI. The costs of these taxes will propagate throughout the economy and everyone will adjust their consumption accordingly.
