No. Taxes are not the solution. The media is only reporting the things that are going to get folks riled up. Gotta get those clicks.
In reality, effective climate policies that accept the science include what projects the gov't give permits to (i.e. more to nuclear less to coal), what farms will receive subsidies (which already exist), fuel economy standards, commitments ...[text shortened]... wastes more tax money in a day than most people spend in a lifetime. It's about priority, not cost.
From the link below:
"There’s a split on carbon taxation. According to the Times, about a third of the candidates support a carbon tax (Booker, Buttigieg, Castro, Delaney, Gillibrand, Williamson, and Yang). Another five (Inslee, Klobuchar, O’Rourke, Ryan, Swalwell) said they are willing to consider a carbon tax. The fact that about two-thirds of the candidates were willing to at least consider a carbon tax may show that it’s not seen as quite such political poison as the conventional wisdom would have it.
There’s another split on nuclear power. Most were apparently opposed to new nuclear plants, but six were in favor (Booker, Delaney, Hickenlooper, Inslee, Klobuchar, Ryan, Yang). Three others (Swalwell, Castro, and Williamson) said they might be willing to consider nuclear despite reservations. Most of the others skipped the question. Energy experts and environmentalists are also somewhat divided on this issue, so it’s not surprising that there was no clear consensus among the candidates."
Two-thirds of the candidates were willing to at least consider a carbon tax. The establishment is pushing a carbon tax and it is working regardless of your position on it. Your stated opinion is in the minority.