>without some kind of ban (viable or not, political opposition or not, made by a dictator or made by public voting, yadda yadda), you're not likely to make progress on reducing carbon emissions.
What's wrong with something like a carbon tax, which lets the market decide what the most cost effective way of cutting carbon emissions is?
What's wrong with something like a carbon tax, which lets the market decide what the most cost effective way of cutting carbon emissions is?