No. Taxes are, legitimately, only collected to fund the operations of government. Investment into any sector of the economy does not qualify. Government ownership of the means of production is, quite literally, the root definition of socialism. If that is what you think should be the founding philosophy of modern nation states, despite history, feel free to lobby & vote for that. If enough of the electorate agrees with you, you will get the government you deserve.
From the history of taxation (economist Richard A. Musgrave):
"In the absence of a strong reason for interference, such as the need to
reduce pollution, the first objective, resource allocation, is furthered if tax policy does not interfere with market-determined allocations. The second objective, income redistribution, is meant to lessen inequalities in the distribution of income and wealth. The objective of stabilization—implemented through tax policy, government expenditure policy, monetary policy, and debt management—is that of maintaining
high employment and price stability.
A free market can handle externatlities such as pollution, so long at harm can be demonstrated. With chemicals or waste, it's relatively easy to demonstrate harm. As for CO2, that's incredibly difficult because even if everyone accepted that it was pollution, a tort case would still have to be presented to show actual harm.
Really it can? Last October DuPont Co. was found liable for a woman’s kidney cancer in the first of 3,500 lawsuits over a toxic Teflon ingredient found in Ohio and West Virginia water. DuPont has known since
1984 that the chemical, C8, was getting into drinking water and even told employees living near the plant to secretly collect tap water from their homes and that water was found to contain the chemical. DuPont knew the dangers all along, and kept hiding them, even instructing employees in 1992 not to donate their blood because it was infected. In its defense, DuPont lawyer Damond Mace said C-8 isn’t harmful and
isn’t regulated.
In your defense harm was eventually demonstrated (took 30+ years) and DuPont is going to have to pony up some dough. Meanwhile this woman and many others will pay with their lives. Score one for the free market (lack of regulations).
As far as Co2 being a pollutant or not, it's actually been decided.
The US Clean Air Act was incorporated into the United States Code of Federal Regulations, Title 42, Chapter 85. Its Title III, Section 7602(g) defines an air pollutant:
"The term “air pollutant” means any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive (including source material, special nuclear material, and byproduct material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air."
More specifically Title 42, Section 7408 states that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator must publish a list of certain air pollutants:
"emissions of which, in his judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare"
In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (in 2007), the US Supreme Court held that the Clean Air Act gives the EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases. Two years after the Supreme Court ruling, in 2009 the EPA issued an endangerment finding concluding that:
"greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare....The major assessments by the U.S. Global Climate Research Program (USGCRP), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the National Research Council (NRC) serve as the primary scientific basis supporting the Administrator’s endangerment finding."
One other question, why did the government have to step in to bail out banks and others during the 2008 financial crisis? Much, especially in the mortgage industry, a result of reduced regulations. Why wasn't it simply handled by the "free market" concept?