Should we have at least a $100 a ton carbon price in 1st world countries?

MayCaesar

First of all, let me thank my opponent for suggesting this debate. While I do accept the debate, I would like my opponent to clarify their reasoning so I could respond in a meaningful manner. Specifically, I do not follow the logical chain from the stated premises to the conclusion that a $100+ a ton carbon price would "better reflect the overall cause". Here are my questions:

• What exactly transaction is being talked about? Are we talking about pure CO2 stored in a tank which I want to purchase, so that the government would impose a price control on it? Are we talking about equivalent amount of CO2 industrial activities I partake in produce? Are we talking about direct imposition of these price control, or more indirect regulations that are projected to result in the market price being this?
• It is unclear to me what it means to "steal from future generations". I would like to hear my opponent's definition of "stealing" used in this sentence. All (economical) definitions of stealing I am familiar with involve stealing from someone who currently possesses a piece of property, which, to my understanding, future generations metaphysically cannot.
• I do not understand where the number of $100 came from. Why not $99 or $101? Why not $50 or $200? What economical analysis resulted in this spectacularly round number?
• I would like to understand how my opponent arrived at the conclusion that without this measure in place I would eventually have a "bunch" of climate change-displaced refugees in my neighborhood. Is my neighborhood somehow special, or does this sentence refer to a more general "A neighborhood", in which case climate change-displaced refugees would somewhat uniformly fill out all neighborhoods? And, again, why does the exact value of $100 prevents this from occurring, rather than $99 or $101 or some other value?
• My opponent also mentioned the projected consequences of a one meter rise in sea level, which appears to me to be completely disconnected from the rest of the argument. I would like to see the connection drawn; how does this support my opponent's conclusion?
• Finally, I would like to see a bit of discussion of the potential negative consequences of imposing the regulations my opponent has in mind. As per famous Thomas Sowell' quote, "There are no solutions, only trade-offs". The discussion of this proposal without considering both positive and negative consequences of it seems incomplete to me.

With that, I am handing the microphone over to my opponent to clarify their argument, so we can proceed with a constructive discussion. 

Dreamer

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggested that a carbon price of $100/tCO2e[a] could reduce global GHG emissions by at least half the 2019 level by 2030.[2]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_cost_of_carbon

For each ton emitted into the atmosphere, co2 is a pollutant.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2021/06/14/qa-william-nordhaus-interview-carbon-pricing/

A $100 carbon price could be implemented via tax, cap and trade, or a combination of both. No, I don't fully understand all the intricate details, but that is why we have experts.

"Expert consensus is a powerful thing. None of us have the time or ability to learn about everything/ That's why we frequently defer to experts, such as consulting doctors when we’re ill."

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm