[jltsiren]

If you want to tax something, you have to define it, measure it, and report it. You need a system for collecting the taxes, a system for enforcing the collection, and a system for validating that the reported numbers are correct. You will need more regulations and more bureaucracy than if you had simply banned it.

Banning something is a solution that prevents some people from doing what they want. Taxing something is a solution that subjects a (potentially much) larger group of people to a reporting and tax burden and random inspections. If it's authoritarianism you are concerned about, you have to contrast the sizes of these groups and the potential harms from the banning and tax collection to determine which solution is worse.

[Dylan16807]

That taxation system already exists for jet fuel. Nothing new needs to be added.

[jltsiren]

Which is a tax on jet fuel, not on carbon emissions. If you raise the tax to cover the negative externalities, you create an incentive to use other fuels that may be less efficient and more harmful but cheaper. If you extend the tax to cover the use of all fuels in aviation, you need a mechanism to prevent people from using fuels bought for other purposes.

Regulation is difficult, especially when you are trying to outwit the market.

[Dylan16807]

There is also sufficient regulation in place to make sure jets don't put random garbage in their fuel tanks. Not that you need it, because it would damage the engines.

I have no idea what you think a passenger jet would switch to?

[jltsiren]

Not random garbage but fuels the engines are specifically designed to use. After the regulations are in place, in order to circumvent them.

If writing regulations that have the intended effect without significant downsides was as easy as you suggest, tax planning would not be a big business.

[Dylan16807]

Vehicle fuel regulations seem pretty solid to me.

It's not like a whole airline can get away with not reporting how much fuel they buy, and a carbon tax would apply to all their fuels.

Many taxes are complicated and flawed, but this kind is already good to go.

[jltsiren]

How do you define an airline? Especially if the company is active in multiple fields of business. Would a business that operates both planes and trucks have an advantage or a disadvantage under your tax scheme?

How do you deal with refueling at international destinations and possible carbon taxes in the destination country?

Do you actually want to tax carbon emissions or climate impact? A synthetic fuel could plausibly be carbon neutral, but burning it at the cruising altitude would still have an impact on climate change.

[ClumsyPilot]

Are you completely unaware of thebfact that majorn Corporations report billions in profits and pay zero taxes for the past 20 years?

That we have a multi billion dollar industry designed to assist with this process?

Are you aware of the bottomless pit of fraud the carbon yax credita have become?

Or that 80% of plastic recycling and electrinics recycling is fake?