Fossil Fuels are heavily subsidized, and rich people receive a lot more of those subsidies than poor people.
Air pollution comes mostly from fossil fuels. Air pollution kills. There is also a connection between corona deaths and air pollution.
Climate change comes mostly from fossil fuels.
Putting a large cost to CO2 production would help significantly, and it would help the poor and middle class more than rich people.
So: Stopping subsidies, and introducing a significant cost on CO2 would help the planet and its population both for their health and their finances, in particular lower and middle class. Keeping subsidies and preventing a significant cost on CO2 helps the rich but damages everyone and everything else.
Humanity’s choice so far: Subsidies stay, cost on CO2 will not become significant. Deduction from this observation: Selfish rich assholes rule the planet. *sigh*
Reality is of course more complex. Political will must be very strong to implement meaningful CO2 cost. Political will depends to some extent on public demands. Public demands for individual wealth are stronger than those for public health or climate. Political will must also be unanimous and synchronous worldwide. It is not. Political focus depends on the development state of a region, which is not synchronous (there are so-called developing countries). On a more technical note, Methane must not be underestimated, as its specific greenhouse effect is 25 times larger than that of CO2. Methane now seeps out of antarctica.