Joe le Taxi
With respect, where in my post did I imply that aviation should be taxed disproportionately compared with other transportation? It seems eminently fair to me that all users of hydrocarbon should be taxed. In essence I think you have provided a partial answer to my questions - which is that "polluter pays" should apply to all polluters. However, I would ask whether is there a case for saying that aviation should face a higher tax IF the impacts of the CO2 it produces are greater because the emissions are at higher altitude, where the effects are thought to be more severe (or indeed vice-versa if the impact is lower). Similarly if contrails are implicated in the anthropogenic greenhouse effect, should the industry face a pollution tax to recognise this?
Regarding your comments about carbon taxes - I think you ignore one aspect, which is that the total lag time for carbon dioxide emissions is now considered to be about 200 years. The scary aspect of that is that our current climate is still responsing to the early part of the industrial revolution. That means that even if we stabilise carbon dioxide emissions at the current level immediately, we will still see a warming trend for the next 200 years. If we adopt your policy, we will see a warming trend for 300-400 years or more - is this really responsible - even if we use up all fossil fuels. You refer to regional taxes - I did not. Presumably you are also arguing that these taxes should be global, not regional, which seems reasonable. Is it however possible?
Finally, you believe that we will use up all fossil fuels in the next 100-200 years. This has massive implications for future societies. Is it not sensible to put in place a tax regime that encourages the most efficient use of these resources, and which encourages the development now of sustainable technologies?