Matt Janeway Posted over 2 years ago carbon taxes placed every year in an invested sovereign wealth fund for children born that year and every year after. Steven, Not to be a negative nancy, but here are the immediate problems that spring to mind: (1) You need to re-adjust your calculations to account for inflation. In constant 2012 buying power dollars, $50k today invested for 60 years at a rate of return of 7% less a 3% rate of inflation is actually be more like $500k. (2) The tax policy center already projects that people who turn 65 in 2030 will extract a lifetime benefit from social security and Medicare of around $550-600k on average (see ref below). What you're proposing (paying out 25% of the $500k carbon wealth made from an investment in that persons name) amounts to somewhat less than a 25% increase in social security benefits funded by carbon polluters. Its a nice sum, but somewhat less I think than you're implying. http://taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=412281 (3) In the US the basic political question is always "why is it the government's responsibility to make these investments, and not an individual or family's responsibility?" You haven't answered that question. (4) As with any carbon tax, you have to keep in mind that industry is going to pass these costs on to their customers. The end customer for everything is the average consumer. There will be price increases. We can debate about whether that cost is smaller or larger than the cost of global warming, but you haven't made an effort to quantify the cost of global warming. I admire your approach of linking a climate change policy to the wealth of future generations, but I think there is still thinking to be done. The main issues to be answered about global climate change are in quantifying the costs of inaction and negotiating what percentage of GDP we're willing to spend to defray those costs. So far the answer to those is "we dont know" and "none".