Again, I'm a realist, and I just don't see that happening. We live in a democracy, and "I'm going to raise your taxes!" is not a recipe for electoral success.
It depends on how it is sold. Obama was elected twice, after all.
If people can be made to understand that all the cheap transportation and other goodies they get from hydrocarbons today are only cheap because they're accruing a massive debt that they will have to pay eventually (and the longer it is deferred, the more interest there will be on it), then hopefully we can make it politically viable. It's already not all that contentious among Democrats, and that is half the country already. It might take longer for "free market magically solves everything" crowd on the right, but eventually the costs will simply become too obvious already to ignore (unfortunately we'll have some more of that accumulated interest by then).
If we aren't willing to pay for it in any way at all, well, then it sucks to be us.
Are you going to deny them development at gunpoint? Because that's what it would take.
If the choice is between their development and ruining the entire ecosystem worldwide, then yes, absolutely. It is unfair in a sense that we used up an unfair share of this resource by virtue of discovering it first and exploiting it for longer, and it could be counterbalanced by e.g. funding nuclear and fusion (and solar and wind where it makes sense) in those developing countries on our dime, so that they can skip past the fossil-fuel-powered industrial revolution stage.