That is why I think the simple solution is best: a straight emissions tax refunded in the form of checks to the population. Consumption taxes ultimately do get passed on to consumers, so writing them checks for the total is certainly fair enough. It pretty much eliminates the regressiveness. And it provides incentives throughout the economy to either stop using hydrocarbons or use them more efficienctly.
[WS:] How exactly will emission tax refunds provide an incentive to reduce consumption? It is the same as the current system of subsidies that keep the price of gas or energy low? The only way consumers will change they behavior is when they have to bear the full cost of what they actually consume - so the consumption tax is the way to go.
Stated differently, if emission taxes are invested in energy efficient alternatives e.g. electric trains instead of cars - they are also "refunded" to the consumer but with a very important conditionality attached to it - the consumer gets a "refund" or rather a subsidy only if he/she refrains from using the taxed form of energy (e.g. gasoline that powers cars ) and uses the non-taxed one (e.g. electricity that power trains).
So why on earth do you insist on refunds? They are counterproductive, unless one wants to implement Robin-Hoodism (which is a bunch of populist tripe.)
Wojtek