And I asked what about other emission sources, you're now evading the question. Concrete as an example for something that's not a "fuel" and yet its production is responsible for a significant portion of C02 emissions. Why would you just ignore this, the carbon debate in the general public is clearly not based on rationality and understanding, such a "carbon tax" would be a complete misnomer.
Your original reply to my post asked for specifics of what a carbon tax is. I replied: a tax on either the sourcing or consumption of fossil fuels.
I can see now that you were actually looking for me to justify a carbon tax from a policy perspective, not define it. I am not interesting in doing so, hence “evading the question”
Why do you call it a "carbon tax" when what you actually mean is a fossil fuel tax which specifically excludes other emission sources?
You've not explained that part at all. It's like saying "I want a wealth tax" and then when someone asks how it actually works you tell them you tax expensive cars. That's not a wealth tax but a luxury vehicle tax.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46455844