(edit) Using that money to finance switching to battery/hydrogen/whatever powered cars for people with less resources could even offset it fairly. Let them help the rest improve the situation for everyone and they can keep their toys.
The same holds for the carbon footprint of any minority group. And everybody belongs to some minority group in some way. Does that mean everybody is exempt from the law? (No).
It’s like not demolishing the Parthenon and some other old buildings even if they don’t meet the modern construction requirements.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28652958
Putting some Ferrari's in a museum or on some restricted racing track is ok. But forcing everybody to follow the law and letting some rich people on TV ignore all the rules seems like a bad way to fight climate change.
I guess it comes down to what you are trying to achieve. Do you want to cut down the emissions dramatically or are you after some kind of engine equality ideal?
The number of spots should be truly limited though, you don't want to create a class of people who pollute and pay for thanks to inheritance or luck like the way society is divided into people with large homes and people who share rooms.
The carbon footprint of the super rich's personal consumption is negligible. 1000 Ferrari cars don't pollute as much as 3000 economy cars.
Banning Ferrari is like saving the planet by using paper straws. It makes sense to take 290,000,000 ICE cars off the street of Europe and leave a spot for a few thousand exotic ICE cars as a cultural artefact. The emission difference that would do is at a rounding error scale.
Actually, using paper straws probably has larger impact. People don't actually ride these cars that much, they move them around with trucks to keep the milage down.
[0] https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/cars/Car-CO2-and-fuel-economy-mp...