You want people's taxes to subsidise cheap charging. Of course you are fine with taxes on gas. I guess whatever the state says, goes. Reality be damned. The state's reality be blessed.
The key word is 'voluntary', ie without coercion, force or manipulation. If you don't pay taxes, you will be forced to pay, regardless of whether you agree with the attack (not defence) budget, or whether you would like the money to be used on actual communally valued goals as opposed to lining an ever increasing number of government workers' pockets, or the cradle-to-grave propaganda effort, etc.
With roads, in the first place these existed before the state adopted the infrastructure - someone made these. New roads were created to encourage a specific type of corporate industrialisation, with petrol companies heavily supporting gas burning cars. And nowadays, roads are being constrained and pedestrianised to discourage cars - so this infrastructure (that has already been paid for) is being rolled back (at further expense). So, how is that a good use of money; what value is the state adding here? By the way, having an extensive road network is probably why we don't have flying cars.
Water systems and sanitation are sort of the same thing. Perhaps you think taking all the sewage and grouping it into a river of muck to then discharge it at sea is a good idea. I don't. Have you considered that human excrement might be processed more locally, and then re-used as fertiliser - as we do for animal waste? Probably this is how things were done (I know this was the case even recently in China) but instead we are taught the gross story that 300 years ago people in cities threw their sewage into the streets, walking into their homes, etc. I'm sure some of that occurred - forced industrialisation happened very quickly, moving people off common (acts of enclosure, etc - this is state sanctioned theft, btw) forced people into cities. I'm sure peoples' peasant habits could not work in the city.
Force, brutality and tight control underlie the state system. Humans are perfectly capable of managing things without state intervention - but once you force people from a more natural state (living near the land to living in densely populated cities), the state seems to be the only management option. The state is not actually there to help - it only needs to appear to be 'doing its best'. It is there to collectivise and harness the efforts of many people, regardless of how they feel about it. Most people simply accept the reality that they are presented and are happy to do what it tells them. The state uses schooling, culture etc to create the idea that it is beneficent, that it has a moral right to force another - it literally teaches people to adopt its self-serving immorality - and it works! Mostly.
I'm not trying to argue with you about the merits of our current population size. But what I'm trying to point out is that your solutions of "local problems should have local solutions" don't work very well when you have 10,000 people in a 1000x1000 area. Suppose you were in New York City, where would you put the sewage to be processed by those 10,000 within that 1000x1000 area? I'm starting to wonder if you are considering these problems, or if you rather have a pet philosophy and a utopia that you want everything to conform to.
Just to let you know, utopias are not "ideal" in the sense that they are great societies to live in and I can think of examples of utopias that are very very bad for individuals. It's not something to be strived for it's a tool for thought experiment. You might appreciate most the concept of an Industrialist utopia, where all time is measured, efficiency is maximised, workers are tools, and resources are meant to be extracted.
To address one of your points regarding sanitation: we do not "[take] all the sewage and [group] it into a river of muck to discharge it at sea." If you look at how a modern sanitation system works, the sewage is very highly treated before discharge, and it flows through entirely separate, self-contained underground waterways before it reaches the processing center. To liken this to dumping untreated sewage into the sea is very disingenuous. Solids, chemicals, bacteria, salts, and other undesirable elements are extracted either in settling ponds or via aerobic or osmotic extraction. And it's utterly impossible to build and maintain something like this for a community without levying some tax from that community. Even something as simple as a community septic system requires ongoing maintenance and repair.
But everyone in the community benefits from not getting the diseases that are associated with having untreated sewage flowing on top of the ground. If one person in that community is allowed to opt out, what would they do with their sewage? In the worst case they might dump it on the ground, which makes everyone around them sick. What you propose is that they should be allowed to ignore externalities and do their own thing. That's not fair to the other 9,999 people in the 1000x1000 block who don't want to get cholera and typhoid and anything else from that 1 person's untreated sewage.
Industrial civilization must stop. full stop.
I'm not "parroting Big Oil propaganda". They're one of the worst culprits, who managed to addict us to cheap energy. Now everybody expects access to cars, planes, and electric grids, no matter how destructive they are.
The whole reason anyone should care about climate change is that it's going to make life worse for ourselves and our descendants. If your pitch for addressing climate change is "let's make our lives worse, proactively", then you're never going to win popular support.
Good messaging is "We can make our lives better, and give future generations the opportunity for even better lives, without fossil fuels". Anything else is inadvertently advocating for nihilistic hedonism as the world burns.