But the rate can't be flat. Some types of carbon emissions are more important than others. That has to be taken into account, otherwise carbon tax will never be feasible morally or politically.
Eh… that’s an invitation for lobbyists and politicians to buggar the whole thing up for every self-serving interest imaginable. The simpler the better.
Why not? If it’s truly about the environment then everyone should pay based on their environmental impact. Sure, if carbon/methane/whatever can be shown to have a higher environmental impact when emitted at altitude or whatever, take that into account.
But placing the environment second to specifically target the “luxury” as some sort of way to “get” the rich is only harming your case.
No. It's about maximizing value per emission. The value of luxury goods is less than basic necessities (it's stuff we can live without by definition) so the rate should compensate for that.
I would accept a flat rate if each person got a fixed amount of emissions assigned to them and each person could decide to sell or keep their "emission right". Then everyone would have enough for basic needs.
Better to simply charge emissions based on the cost required to scrub them.
Trying to inject value judgements into it turns the whole situation into an absurd government mandated ethics board. The precise task governments have shown themselves to royally screw up time and time again.
This is why the game is really screwed up. To make these decisions when coming up with carbon credits, or any other decisions regarding resources in a market, policy makers have to defer to industry because they simply don't understand industry and will never have the time to fully understand it like a domain expert would. Now, its not necessarily that the industry's own scientists and experts are corrupt, but that the business models naturally disincentivize hard truths if they come at a cost to profit. Shareholders don't want to hear that their investment is being taxed above others in this case. They will hire lawyers to fight fight fight their battle until its won. There is no opposition here to that, no balance to that sort of reaction, so it continues unimpeded towards this way just as easily and unstoppable as a gunpowder reaction to flame. As such, as soon as you think about putting a restriction on industry, it will serve to benefit investors of that industry first and foremost as it will be penned by that same industry you seek to regulate.