How is a carbon tax supposed to reduce ghg's?

Won't any tax imposed on ghg producing companies and products just be passed right down to the consumer? Why do all of these environment saving plans just pass money around with no impact on emissions? Kyoto for example, how would giving a third world country a bunch of money to buy hot air from them help lower emissions? Won't that money go towards developing their countries into fellow ghg emitters? Why not spend that money at home to develop cleaner technology instead of financing the growth of more ghg emiting countries? What am I missing?How is a carbon tax supposed to reduce ghg's?
That's one of the big issues I have with the whole man-made global warming thing. Seems if you pay Al Gore and his henchmen his carbon taxes and his carbon offsets, you can pollute all you want. I've always doubted his sincerety but now this seems like a strange way to solve a problem.How is a carbon tax supposed to reduce ghg's?
It isn't going to reduce anything.



It is simply a way for the greedy to make more money off of the gullible.
It will reduce ghg's but that doesn't mean that it is necessarily a good idea. Paying extra for energy means there is less money for other things. Clearly having something cost more will decrease its use but that is not a good thing IMO. Kyoto is so quintessential liberalism on parade. It amounts to nothing more than punishing the rich (that would be US) and redistribution of income that certainly won't help solve anything.