Ofcourse not. There are plenty of policy tools to decrease our GHG emissions. Cap and trade for instance, legally setting product standards, improving urban design for closing energy cycles, product labels, etc.
@dumdum: you confuse cap and trade with taxes. In taxes, products are taxed for their contribution to GHG emissions. High taxes on petrol, low taxes on woollen socks. Greener variants of products will thus be relativily cheap, if they exist. The grand problem with climate change is that a lot of products are energy intensive, and there are often no real substitutes. A bicycle won't get you as far as a car. An electric car still devours energy.
So when you tax: you make GHG intensive products more expensive, hoping that people will then choose to buy less of them, or switch to other products. unfortunatly, all products cost energy, and so, a carbon tax will cause inflation. everything just becomes more expensive. Moreover, the tax does not cause a clear market signal for more efficient technologies. All industries, whether they can easily evade GHG emissions or whether they have hardly any options for emission reduction, are taxed equally. Those with the easiest options only have a moderate incentive to decrease their emissions. On top of that, a lot of the market wealth is funneled into government funds, and efficiently spending government money is very difficult. Cap and trade solves this problem. Those with easy mitigation efforts can make money of their eforts of minmizing emissions- in theory that is. A proper function market requires readily available knowledge on mitigation options, price developments of the emission permits and a authority that sells (not gives) the exact right amount of permits. This is what failed in europe. still, for large industries this can be an efficient solution, that welcomes innovation.
For conusmers, however, bookkeeping ones carbon emissions, implementing the latest in GHG saving technology, etc. is a few bridges to far. The transaction costs are too high. it would be too difficult. A carbon tax would be a the lesser evil, if it is burden-neutral: the tax revenue is kept constant. GHG intensive products are taxed more, GHG extensive products are taxed less. Small business: likewise.
But i also think governments should radically reform society. Take a look at an american city: it is entirely built for cars. not for people, but for cars. people have little choice but to drive a car. they live far away from tehir work, school, the mall etc. US urban design is a barrier to an energy efficient economy. Changing this requires more than market or tax solution. It requires vision and collaborative action.
@ bravozulu: Taxing socialist? What a load of crap. Socialist countries do not have taxes. There is only one employer: the state. They pay you, for your work ( only a little, ofcourse). There is a lot of bad to be said a bout socialism, but not that they tax the people. Get your facts straight.
What is it about climate change that makes everybody shout communism. Is there irrefutible evidence that the two are connected?