This is something you will have to deal with anyway. Let's take the the US for an example (although this will apply virtually anywhere in the world). I don't have time to gather excellent data, but wikipedia tells me that in 2010 28% of households made less than $25K, 51% made less than $50K, 69% made less than $75K.
So in reality, about 30% are in a fairly serious pinch nearly all the time and 50% are probably doing OK, but still having to watch their budgets pretty closely. Only 30% of the population has the kind of earnings that people on HN generally consider acceptable.
Let's say that energy which doesn't liberate much carbon is 20% more expensive than carbon intensive energy (who knows). Really, only 30% of the population can easily swallow that cost increase. And even then, if we are talking about replacing cars, etc, etc the capital costs are actually outside the reach of a large percentage of those people (imagine being told that you have to replace your car today... could you afford it?)
In reality, if only the people who could afford it switched, it would not actually represent a large reduction in carbon usage. You have to disproportionately affect lower income brackets because that's were the vast majority of people live.
So if you tax carbon to make it attractive to switch, it's really not any more expensive. The main issue is making sure that people are able to deal with the capital expenses. Otherwise they won't switch. So IMHO, you are correct that carbon tax alone won't be enough. But there isn't really a downside to such a tax as long as you find a way to deal with capital expenses. In order to be successful, the poor must switch to the more expensive option.
So in reality, about 30% are in a fairly serious pinch nearly all the time and 50% are probably doing OK, but still having to watch their budgets pretty closely. Only 30% of the population has the kind of earnings that people on HN generally consider acceptable.
Let's say that energy which doesn't liberate much carbon is 20% more expensive than carbon intensive energy (who knows). Really, only 30% of the population can easily swallow that cost increase. And even then, if we are talking about replacing cars, etc, etc the capital costs are actually outside the reach of a large percentage of those people (imagine being told that you have to replace your car today... could you afford it?)
In reality, if only the people who could afford it switched, it would not actually represent a large reduction in carbon usage. You have to disproportionately affect lower income brackets because that's were the vast majority of people live.
So if you tax carbon to make it attractive to switch, it's really not any more expensive. The main issue is making sure that people are able to deal with the capital expenses. Otherwise they won't switch. So IMHO, you are correct that carbon tax alone won't be enough. But there isn't really a downside to such a tax as long as you find a way to deal with capital expenses. In order to be successful, the poor must switch to the more expensive option.