Well, "brainiac," if we're going to play that kind of game, wouldn't you also agree that those benefiting from a lack of a tax on carbon (oil refineries, chemical manufacturers, etc.) stand to continue to make "trillions" if they can preserve the status quo?
Why is it that those who benefit from the status quo--which is creating untold damage to the environment--must be treated as if they have nothing to gain when they do everything possible to ensure that the status quo is not upended, but people like Paulson who call for things like carbon taxes are suddenly criticized by people like yourself who imply that they have a conflict of interest because they "stand to make trillions" if the status quo is altered?
Does that make sense to you? It makes about as much sense to me as when I hear folks try to claim that those shifty scientists are all making up this global thing up so they can get tons of grant money from the government or other institutions (grant money! with restrictions on how it can be spent! how lucrative...), all while those same people ignore the simple fact that oil companies and others have a much more significant financial interest in convincing people that there is "nothing to see here." All the while those entrenched interests spend billions to preserve their current tax subsidies and fight off any policy that would make it more costly for them to continue releasing carbon into the atmosphere.
But yeah, it's the scientists or policy-makers like Paulson that are the ones who have the conflict here...
Follow the money, indeed.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
