Put a carbon tax on fuel in a western country and you end up with an unhappy population who pay more money in tax. Personally I'd distribute the revenue as a UBI which would mean the most polluting would be worse off but the average person would be better off.
The people who would mostly benefit from reduction in emissions - especially in the short term - are those in other countries. It's not going to be Finland suffering the most from doubling of the cost of food from failed harvests, it's going to be massive failures in rice harvests in south east asia. Finns will always be able to outcompete the average Cambodian when buying food.
One of the costs of emissions to western countries - say Spain - is increased bad weather - more frequent storms, fires etc. All fairly small stuff compared with mass starvation or water shortages though. That starvation leads to another problem -- increased migration pressure.
But those costs are going to be borne anyway. Even if Spain stopped emitting CO2, it wouldn't make an ounce of difference. International agreements have failed time after time to curb emissions.
The main benefit of renewable energy for a given country isn't the reduction in emissions, it's the increase in energy independence - no need to import gas or oil from unstable countries.
