Squint a bit and Canada's carbon dividend looks like UBI.
I'm fully on board.
As an Albertan I'm not super-happy about paying for the country's party over the past 20 years and now being kicked out of the house when we're out of beer.
FWIW I am (was) seriously considering moving to Wyoming or other net beneficiary of our own federal largess.
Noting your work in asset planning, I'd love to find a counterpoint to VOX's David Roberts coverage of the energy industry, with respect to climate crisis, renewables, governance, financials, etc.
That is to say, the reality is you have a zilch chance of passing a carbon tax in the US government sufficient enough to facilitate the change you are hoping to see. The only way oil and gas goes for a carbon tax is if it ends up being a net benefit to them, and as long as there is oil to burn, I don't see that happening any time soon.
I would think California, for as progressive and liberal as it claims to be on the outset would pass something like this, but it's tough for me to be too optimistic there considering the influence and power Chevron has over the state.
But you start off with a dividend that would end up paying out more to the majority of voters than it would cost them to fund (because a significant fraction of the money would come from corporations and foreign oil interests), and that gets you a lot of support. Then you get all the companies that profit from the transition because they get to sell solar panels and electric heat pumps and stuff. Then you get all the people who are paying attention and notice that even if their current carbon footprint is above average, they could buy an electric car and switch to electric heat right away and still end up with a net profit from the dividend (which is still coming in large part from corporations and foreign oil).
You add up all those people and it's basically the whole country lined up against the oil and coal industries. It's the kind of coalition that can get a bill passed -- but only if people care enough to demand it. Majorities get screwed over left and right when they can't be bothered to organize.
We have some of the problems solved. While batteries are energy dense enough to support passenger cars, there's still a lot of progress to be made before the tech can meet the demands of shipping/bulk-cargo/intercontinental transport. For example, batteries still need to be 20 times more dense before we can build a cargo/passenger aircraft with one.
Significantly more than 20 times I'd bet. The airframe will have to be significantly reinforced to support a design where the maximum takeoff weight is equal to the maximum landing weight. At that point, aerodynamics start to look a lot more like a rocket equation where you can't dump stages.
I think medium to long term, nuclear or renewable powered synthetic fuel is far more likely, especially since we already have a lot of generic infrastructure applicable to fossil fuels and carbon taxes could be the thing that pushes synthetic fuel into the market.
This doesn't require alien technology, it just requires carbon to be priced so that it isn't artificially cheaper than existing alternatives.
The state of biofuel today leaves a lot to be desired as far as the ability to scale without causing other environmental disasters, and many of them aren't even carbon neutral.
As for nuclear cargo ships -- I'd love to see them, but the liability and political hurdles are insane. You'd probably need a really big carbon tax before we'd see them.
Even without nuclear, container ships don't have major weight restrictions (they already weigh a hundred thousand tons), so you can fuel them with anything that will catch on fire. Make carbon expensive and they'll just buy whatever is the next cheapest -- sawmill residue, seaweed, whatever. A lot of the difficulty with "biofuels" is the process of making them into oils that can directly replace petroleum in road vehicles, but large ships don't need that. A large furnace like that can burn unprocessed solid biomass.
Although, burning biomass in ocean-going vessels is not necessarily a net positive. If, for example, they start burning sawmill scraps which were previously being pressed into Ikea furniture, you're just replacing one carbon emission with another. Biofuels are complicated; you have to be careful not to offset sequestration, as well as being cognizant to other emissions generated both in the process of generation and in burning them. Because of the tangential effects, some biofuels emit more carbon than oil!
This doesn't require new technology. We know how to make electric cars, electric heat pumps, solar panels, nuclear reactors etc. This is all existing technology.
But take a look at oil prices right now. That's what happens if you start to reduce world demand for oil, and that's the real problem. All we need from governments is to put a sufficient tax on carbon that keeps carbon more expensive than alternatives even as the demand for oil and coal falls off a cliff.
Which doesn't even make oil dramatically more expensive -- it only keeps it at least as expensive as it was last year against declining demand, as economies of scale pick up for carbon alternatives and they become cheaper and thus more customers choose them.
A carbon tax doesn't destroy the economy, all it does is destroy the oil industry (faster).