If money is collected with pollution taxes, then money does not need to be collected from other taxes.  The government has to get its money some way.  Why not save the planet in the process?  Some of the money can go to the poor, or whatever else you want.

Your measures would help, but they are not as fine-tuned as pollution taxes.  For example, subsidizing efficent cars only indirectly decreases fuel consumption.  The marginal cost to the driver of driving that extra mile is still less than the true cost of producing, delivering, and cleaning up the mess from the fuel that was burned.  He would have an efficient car, but he would drive it unnecessarily.  If there were pollution taxes, he would buy an efficient car AND cut down on his miles. 

Also, such an incentive encourages the production of ultra-efficient cars, for example those made with carbon fiber.  You would think that that would decrease carbon emissions, but paradoxically  it can INCREASE carbon emissions.  This is because the energy required to make ultra-efficient cars can easily exceed the small reductions from the added efficiency.  It takes a lot of energy and requires a lot of pollution to make carbon fibers and other ultralightweight materials.  Much more energy than good old steel.  Overall, it is often less polluting to maintain existing cars in good condition but use them less.  The goal is decreased carbon emissions, not more efficient cars per se.  There is a difference.  It is better to incentivize carbon emissions directly via a gas tax rather than indirectly.

If fuel taxes increase the cost of everything, then that is because everything has a role in destroying the planet.  The cost rises in proportion to the harm that accrues to the planet from the item whose price has increased from the pollution tax.  Consumption of items is precisely inhibited in proportion to the item’s harm to the planet.  Production of the most harmful products is substantially curtailed.  Isn’t that what you want?

You could give every poor person $4000, but create pollution taxes that raise the average cost that a poor person pays by $3000.  The average poor person benefits, the polluting poor person breaks even, the ecological poor person profits greatly, and the world ends up a cleaner place.  Why wouldn’t you want that?

Do you still not want pollution taxes?  Not even a little bit?

Probably not.

Well, I tried.