the outcomes aren't necessarily any better than incentivizing renewables and energy efficiency, both of which also reduce emissions and are creating more jobs than pretty much any other sector....
BTW, I tend to not like the sort of incentives/subsidies that are easy to game the system.
Europe's cap-and-trade system is an example. If you don't set the caps correctly, you end up with this arbitrage market where some companies are being [unfairly] subsidized by selling their credits while others are being [unfairly] punished and forced to buy credits, in a way that may not actually conform to solving the problem. Even worse, if you set the caps too high, you don't reduce emissions, and if you set them too low, you end up punishing your own captive industries relative to external (US/worldwide) competitors.
Tesla, which [in addition to a sidelong subsidy from federal/state/other nations' BEV subsidies to buyers] gets significant revenue by selling emissions credits to other automakers, is another example. Their great Q4 and terrible Q1 were directly tied to demand being pulled forward based on the federal tax credit being chopped in half. Now going forward in the US they'll--as pioneers of the industry--will be selling their cars at full price while their competitors who haven't met the volume numbers are subsidized by the Feds at $7500/vehicle.
Imagine if we'd tried to do this with tobacco. Let's set different "caps" on nicotine consumption such that cigars, pipes, menthol cigs, "light" cigs, full-strength cigs, vapes, and smokeless (dip/snuff) all have different caps. Let's allow them to price/sell their credits to each other based on the mix of what they're selling/using. Do you think that would have been NEARLY as efficient of a way to reduce overall tobacco usage as just taxing the stuff?
Price tends to be a remarkable driver of behavior. Setting a price on carbon--from whatever source--will tend the users of the worst-polluting carbon sources to be punished most heavily, effectively driving down usage.