My view is that the role of government helps regulate maximizing value for society as a hole (wherein externalities are not reflected in private market transact

My view is that the role of government helps regulate maximizing value for society as a hole (wherein externalities are not reflected in private market transactions), which requires coordinating some form of collective action. The guiding principle of these decisions should be to redirect the value from a disproportionate harm to society toward ameliorating those harms. So infact the contribution to climate change from a private jet far outweighs that of a commercial jet. That is because few people are inducing great harm, rather than that carbon being more efficiently used across more people. So in exchange for inducing [x] amount of carbon, society gains nearly nothing from a private jet flight where as commercial moves vastly more people. Indeed there are also ethical considerations of using a private jet when there is a more efficient alternative (commercial), that could be taxed as a 'vice'. Lastly one day there may be a point where we need to ban these type of emissions wholesale rather than look at an efficiency basis.(Example: no amount of heroin is useful to society), but for carbon that conversation has not yet entered mainstream political discussions. (A hard cap on emissions would make flying only available to the very rich). Therefore it is both practical and just to tax private jet carbon. An observation: from interning at a firm adjacent to private aviation I noticed that there appears no upper bound the demand for private aviation. Even in the scenario where a tax does not change demand for private jet miles, it will at the very least provide funding for ameliorating the harms to society from the marginal production of carbon emissions.