Maybe it's a worthwhile tradeoff to use fossil fuels in one place and make up for it by sequestering carbon elsewhere.

There are also other things that create massive carbon emissions. Cement is the most prominent I know of by adding 8% of global carbon emissions (https://psci.princeton.edu/tips/2020/11/3/cement-and-concret...)

Are you saying maybe fossil fuels are good (or less bad) and cows are bad (or less good)? And we ought to tax cattle farms so that we can burn more fossil fuels? That's what it sounds like when you really look at it.

No, I am saying, tax carbon emissions regardless of source and let people make their own decision on what they want to spend on. The source of the emissions doesn't matter to how negative the externality is, so let's not put a value judgement where we don't need one.

> The source of the emissions doesn't matter to how negative the externality is

It does, though. We seem to have lost sight of the sustainability dimension of our planet. Cows can fart all day long and the carbon/methane cycles will recapture it, sustainably. In contrast, we cannot pull oil out of the ground in any sustainable way, since it was all created 100 million years ago in a one-time geological event that is unlikely to ever occur again in the history of Earth