But we know those taxes don't exist right now. That would be a way to fix the problem, but it sounds like you agree that the problem exists and the burning in the thought experiment is a bad thing.
If you purchase gasoline, it's not my right to tell you what to do with it, insofar as it doesn't create additional externalities from that point on, like if you pour it in a river or something. You legally own it now, you get to do whatever you want with it. Same with wood, same with internet bandwidth - this is generally how private property should work.
The burning in the thought experiment is actually the least bad thing imo. The alternative is to seize property from someone who purchased that property legitimately, which is unacceptable.
As a side note, burning gasoline for no reason is pretty close to what billionaires do whenever they fly their private jets. It's a fact of capitalism, and it will exist for as long as capitalism exists.
No, you make the cost of energy take into account the cost of the carbon emissions. That's what a carbon tax is. It's not a dangerous path, it's basic economics.
And I didn't say anything about "telling people what they can and can't do", you pulled that out of nowhere. The earlier comments were talking about "shaming" and "what's the fuss", not legal mandates.
Also in practice a law like that is almost certainly going to be implemented as a fine, which is pretty close to a tax.