>Non of which would have done anything but raise prices for the aforementioned
.. which is the entire point? The increase in prices internalizes the cost of pollution. Putting a price on carbon is the most straightforward and economically sensible way to incentivize reducing emissions.
There are ways to implement such a scheme in a way that does not increase the overall tax quota, by either reducing other taxes (VAT, income tax) or directly giving back to the people (tax credits).
One key argument of opponents of the proposed law was indeed that it would have resulted in an overall tax increase, with a lot of money being channelled into a dedicated "green innovation fund", outside of regular parliamentary control.
Unsurprising, many MPs on the pro side were affiliated with the "clean tech" and construction industries, who would have received most of that money.
.. which is the entire point? The increase in prices internalizes the cost of pollution. Putting a price on carbon is the most straightforward and economically sensible way to incentivize reducing emissions.