The Hurdle

 Trying to properly put a price on emissions is really tricky and politically unpopular. One way that has worked overseas is congestion pricing. It's basically a toll on driving into and around cities. New York was considering such a move, but the feckless governor killed it. As an aside, let's take a moment to reflect on just how wretched the New York Democratic Party really is. There is pretty much nothing they can't fuck up. Congestion pricing would've hit Connecticut and New Jersey drivers the hardest and been to the benefit of NYC's transit system, so naturally Hochul killed it.

Aside from the awfulness of NY Dems, this is a great example of how difficult it will be to use market mechanisms to decrease emissions. Anything that raises prices directly - like a tax - is pretty much DOA in an era of inflation worries, but really at any time. Asking people to pay more for something they are already doing for "free" is going to lead to a revolt.

That's why you have to rely on the more cumbersome measures like regulatory action. I think the rush to EVs is a little premature, given our power grid - which itself can be addressed by regulation and direct action - but there is no reason that we can't mandate a move to hybrids and EVs together. Yes, cars will cost more, but ALL cars will cost more and it won't be a tax or a toll that voters see directly.

Also, there is some work on this, but Democrats need to be hammering Trump's tariff plans as being a tax more heavily. It's a tax AND it's inflationary. 

If the criminality of the modern Republican Party can ever sink through and voters reward Democrats with the trifecta in November (and Dems finally kill the filibuster), then I would actually argue for very little new spending. There's a strong case for raising taxes on the rich, limited new programs and a reduction in the deficit.

The one place, though, that they should spend is on carbon-free electrical generation and new transmission lines. The market won't do it fast enough.