Taxing at the point of extraction or consumption should be equivalent, right? No one extracts for the sheer fun of it.
It seems to me we could take a page out of Europe's VAT book which is ultimately paid by the consumer but tracks the "value added" throughout the supply chain from raw resources to finished goods.
So the implementation I like (https://energyinnovationact.org/) would tax the production, but companies could get a tax rebate for non-fuel consumption, such as manufacturing plastics. That puts the onus on companies to get their rebate and is a lot easier to enforce, but is pretty fair -- plastics don't cause emissions aside from the energy used in their production (which would already be taxed if it comes from fossil fuels). I guess one issue would be if you're burning a lot of plastic garbage, like I've heard is common in Japan, though I don't know if that's a big contributor to emissions.
I think it's fair to say it would become common, if you imposed punitive taxes on everything except plastic.
Once it's out of the ground, it's a matter of time before it ends up in the atmosphere, unless unusually careful sequestration measures are taken. Better to subsidize those, and tax generation, rather than try to micromanage the bit in between.
All consumption is equal, to a first approximation. To avoid it ending up in the atmosphere you'd have to go out of your way to ensure that whatever fossil-fuel-based product gets sequestered back in the ground after use - all of it, and somewhere where nobody can easily dig it up again and burn it.
It seems to me we could take a page out of Europe's VAT book which is ultimately paid by the consumer but tracks the "value added" throughout the supply chain from raw resources to finished goods.