1. The state charges a fee to emit greenhouse gases.
2. The proceeds of that fee are divided equally amongst all residents of the nation in the form of a monthly check.
3. The actual bill imposes the fee upstream where the fuel is produced rather than where it is burnt, and imposes border adjustments to prevent outsourcing of emissions to other nations, but I don't want to get into all of that in this post.
4. It's a reasonably short bill[2]. You could probably read and understand every word in an hour.
You can look at this as a two-sided incentive - if you emit less than average, your dividend will be bigger than the fee that you pay and so you get extra spending money. If you emit more than average, then your fee is higher and you come out in the red. Some economic modeling dudes predict this incentive will cause the USA to emit 40% less within 12 years after the policy is implemented, but I honestly have no idea how reliable that prediction is.
However, while that incentive is great and probably exactly what we need, this policy would be the right, just thing to do even if it were not going to move the needle on our emissions rates.
The reason is that, every time [insert your favorite celebrity or business tycoon here] crosses the country in a private jet, they do a little damage to my future and my daughter's. They should reimburse us, and reimburse everyone else they're harming. When I decide to keep my 3000-square-foot house at 70F all through the New England winter, I'm harming your future and those of everyone you love. I should reimburse you.
This policy doesn't place hard limits on any kind of activity or consumption. But any time you're externalizing the cost of your emissions onto society at large, you have to compensate society for the damage.
[1]https://energyinnovationact.org/how-it-works/
[2]https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/763/...