Flying has a hidden cost that wasn't being charged to the flyer. It was being charged to everyone that will suffer from climate change. Charging to offset the damage that flying does is basically just closing a loop hole. (Assuming that the extra money taken is used to actually offset the carbon impact and not just pocketed by industry/government.)

I'm as libertarian as they come, but if you're doing $x of damage to the environment, it seems totally fair to charge $x in taxes to cover that damage. That wouldn't stop you from enjoying an activity -- it's just making the price more accurately reflect the true costs.

I love your philosophy. Just embrace entropy, what could go wrong?

Ah yes, it is so nice to breathe noxious chemicals exhausted from jet engines.

And CO2 is good for plant growth, right?

CO2 being good for plant growth can mean it's bad for forest CO2 sequestration, since the wrong plants take over.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/the-strange-case-of-the-liana...