A $1 per gallon tax on gasoline is enough to make it carbon negative:

1 gallon burnt emits 20lbs of CO2, and a ton is 2000 lbs, so 100 gallons of gasoline emits a ton of CO2.

With current technology takes $15-75 to pull a ton of CO2 out of the atmosphere, or $0.15-0.75 to remediate a gallon of gasoline.

I argue a $1/gallon tax is the minimum viable, since we’ll need a carbon negative economy for the foreseeable future.

It’s not clear to me that $1 more per gallon of gas would kill ICE cars. If I ran a big auto maker, I’d actually lobby for such a tax, since it’s easier than retooling all the lines, and it pushes the cleanup costs onto legacy customers.

I personally think the tax should be paid upfront when you buy a new ICE car (assume it’ll last 100,000-200,000 miles), and not at the pump.

Here in Sweden we pay about $4.5 per gallon in taxes.

ICE is still the norm in Sweden, with EC standing for 3% of all personal cars. EC have however taken a significant chunk of new sales, with last month being 35%. It also help that all government workplaces over a certain size has free EC charging, and even some shopping centers.

That doesn't make batteries better, it just makes ICE worse. Battery research is improving, but at the end of the day we are just trading fossil fuels for massive mines- especially cobalt and nickel (with today's tech, who knows tomorrow).

At least CO2 can be scrubbed from the atmosphere.

Lithium is evaporated from brine ponds, and cobalt is actively being phased out in battery chemistries because of its role as a conflict mineral. Battery storage for all use cases is objectively better than burning a fossil fuels.

> At least CO2 can be scrubbed from the atmosphere.

There is no evidence we can scale this up besides planting trees and hoping for the best.

> That doesn't make batteries better, it just makes ICE worse.

This doesn't mean anything. Better is always relative.