So... design your policy such that they don't affect the most poor (fund things by raising taxes on the wealthy, etc). It in fact is that simple, yet we lack the political will to make policy that disproportionately affects the wealthy.

That isn't because we can't, it's because our ideology ensures we won't.

Why should global warming taxes be also an instrument to rebalance wealth? That's exactly what discredits them when I push for them as a debate: The middle class feel very insecure about "redistribution".

The OP has responded to the problem of "push[ing] the five most marginal percent [..] into homelessness". Your blowing his modest proposal out of proportion when talking about rebalancing wealth. He only suggested to design the policy in a way that prevents the poorest to become homeless.

Anything that moves money around, moves money around. Asking for a tax that doesn't rebalance wealth one way or another, is to ask for no taxes.

Yes that's right. IMO a climate change tax on fossil fuels should distribute the proceeds evenly amongst everyone in the country.

Then let them feel secure. Let's tax only the super-rich. Perhaps a wealth tax on billionaires.

In fairness, he talked in terms of societal choices - and having the five most marginal percent be that close to the edge is also very much a choice.

I think it's really a long, grueling process of dialogue, explanation of practicals, co-operation of all possible interests, and work. It's a systemic change kind of thing, I think. That kind of stuff isn't easy, and if one is aiming for easiness and some approximation of perfection, it requires a lot of friction between global and local changes.