The opinion article you linked is from a right-rated source . The main suggestion in it,
> That would start with the federal government imposing a national, revenue neutral carbon tax of about $200 per tonne of emissions, immediately (not $50 in 2022 under Trudeau’s plan) and then returning all the money raised back to Canadians in dividend cheques.
has pretty wide support on the left. I'm not sure how that differs from being wealth redistribution, which is what the opinion piece is against. It also doesn't describe what the current scheme is nor how it is wealth redistribution.
As far as party support for nuclear, . Democrats care more about wind/solar. Neither party has majority support for emphasizing nuclear. I don't think people that care about CO2 would rule nuclear out if it were the only option.
Jets vs. thermostat type problems are tragedy of the commons. I don't appreciate private jets ferrying around political leaders, but I doubt they'll be flying commercial. That doesn't seem practical from a security nor time perspective. But, millions of people adjust their thermostats. If everybody tolerated just a liiiiittle bit less than their ideal temperature, how much would that save? Consumption is a tragedy of the commons problem.
I'd like evidence that limousine liberals are the problems w.r.t. taxes. I agree that there is hypocrisy. I disagree about how it rings hollow compared to redistributing the means, especially since "redistributing the means" doesn't even really make sense in that block of text.
Lastly, studies aren't full of blatant inaccuracies nor FUD. The world isn't ending outright, but it's getting a lot worse in a lot of ways in a lot of areas. The Syrian civil war was partially exacerbated by the worst drought ever recorded . The science is settled. Exxon Mobile predicted  exactly what would be happening today  back in 1982. The conclusion of their summary is that serious adverse problems are not likely to occur until the late century, and that the time should allow for coming up with solutions. That time is now, and globally, we are doing very little, because doing what needs to be done would be economically detrimental to established interests.
: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/toronto-sun/ : https://news.gallup.com/poll/182180/support-nuclear-energy.a... : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War : https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/... : https://twitter.com/UNFCCC/status/1125085040768167937