Dismissing my arguments with some vauge handwaving sying that they’re “standard rhetoric” simply won’t stand up to public debate.

As usual you’re simply assuming that this “solution” can be imposed on people. This demonstrates a worrying lack of understanding of politics.

For the public to even remotely support this it will have to be demonstrated to be revenue neutral, and cost neutral to most people. Given that the stated aim is reduce consumption by its very nature it will penalise consumption. Most voters won’t accept this. Most voters are also deeply conservative when it comes to new ideas. They’re far too used to getting fleeced by the politicos. Most would not wish to give up a known evil (payroll taxes) in favour of something that is an unknown quantity. Plus most politicans are currently trying to sell this “idea” as an additional tax. They say them may reduce payroll tax, but no one is proposing that it, and its collection mechanisms, be abolished completely.

This simple fact leads most folk to simply assume that it is a massive revenue generation scheme for governments trying to cover pension deficits, medicare, etc etc

Second, you tend to forget the law of unintended consequences.

When people earn money and have payroll taxes deducted from them the government can take it as a given that people will want to strive to earn more and better their lot. Thus the government have a stable tax base.

If the govenments revenues are dependant on fossil fuel consumption, what happens if people cotton onto the fact that their tax bill can be massively reduced by increasing efficiency. You might find that for ideological reasons you see a huge drop in consumption coupled with a massive drop in government revenues. The government would then be forced to bring back payroll tax to make up the shortfall. This would likely be highly unpopular, especially with people who had committed to large capital expenditure programmes to increase their personal efficiency.

Secondly, in the UK a great many pensioners feel that they cannot afford basic heating due to the cost of gas. A great many actually CAN afford the heating, but in confusion (and a misplaced sense of saving money) they do not adequately heat their homes. Further a great many pensioners did not take the government’s offer of extra fuel benefits, as they did not want to appear to be taking from the state. With mentality like that further increases in the cost of heating will be psychologically devastating for many old people. And this is not just some abject theory. It is known fact that in the UK higher gas costs and cold winters DO increase pensioner cold related deaths.

Plus the ultimate problem lies with the way this scheme will be brought in. Anything designed and brought to fruition by a cross party political system is doomed to fail due to bartering, negotiating etc.

And then there’s the fact that the 3rd world simply won’t wear it either. Much like Koyto they’ve pointed out that they’re entitled a free pass due to historical advantage by 1st world countries.
Any attempt to impose at the border carbon taxes would in all likelihood lead to trading blocs and bilateral trade between countries not wishing to participate. The Chinese will quite happily strike bilateral deals not to impose port of entry carbon costs with anyone happy to listen. You run the risk of creating two tier world economy.

On top of this it is unlikely that you’ll ever get the whole world to agree to such a carbon tax, so it will end up being impossible (and possibly illegal if not ratified by the WTO) to impose taxes at port of entry based on CO2 emissions.