the main argument for UBI is not really about wanting/not wanting to work but about not being able to- because AI can do whatever you would at much higher efficiency and it will not need lot of human coworkers, in other words there wont be enough work offered to meet the demand

a universal basic income would be around what is needed to live of. so if 250 a month is the cost you'd have then and there in a system with ubi. to survive a full month without having to live like an underpaid poor person.

so if 250 covers: food, housing, gas, electricity, internet(it's pretty much needed to do anything like a job so yeah it counts), and schooling then 250 is plenty.

You joke, but this is actually a very plausible scenario towards the end of the century. If we don't get our emissions under control, by 2100, the CO2 level could be 800-1000 ppm. Levels 1000 and above start to have increasing effects on human beings. Above 1000, it will start to feel like being in a stuffy room, even while outside. Prolonged time in elevated CO2 environments like this actually has a measurable effect on human cognition.

But we know how to remove CO2 from a space, it just takes energy. And if people realize they can get noticeable performance and cognitive improvements by installing CO2 scrubbers inside buildings, they eventually will. People will do this for their homes, and companies at the point they become worth the cost. Currently, companies consider CO2 management for facilities like factories. They may add extra ventilation to make sure they don't exceed certain CO2 values. But if the whole atmosphere is at these levels, the only way to lower CO2 indoors will be to install CO2 scrubbers as part of the building's HVAC system.

Which means, yes, you could in theory have a service that rented out CO2 scrubbers for offices, schools, or private homes. If you failed to pay the bill to the CO2 scrubber company, you would have your scrubber repossessed. Or, alternately, the "scrubber" might use materials that chemically absorb CO2, and a technician stops by once and awhile to swap a cartridge out. That cartridge would then be recharged and the material recycled in a plant somewhere. In that case, if you don't pay the bill, your cartridge deliveries cease, and your indoor air quickly becomes as CO2-filled as the atmosphere outside.

So yes, in the future, you could literally have your access to fresh air cut off. If the atmosphere itself is so contaminated that it can't be comfortably breathed, people would seek to ameliorate this by moving to airtight, CO2-conditioned indoor spaces.

Oh, and here's a final bit of fun. In such a world, homes might have airlocks! Imagine a weird airlock that doesn't require you to wear a space suit. You don't want to have to open the front door and let all that CO2 in. Instead, you have a small room you enter. To leave, you first enter the airlock. The air inside the airlock is filled with low-CO2 air. The inner door closes, and the air inside is pumped down to a low, but still livable pressure. Maybe it pumps the air down to the equivalent of, say, a 15,000 ft elevation. The air removed from the airlock is pumped into the house. Then, the airlock is repressurized, but this time with air from the outside. The outer door opens. You leave. The outer door closes, and the airlock lowers its pressure again, shoving the surplus air outside. Finally, the airlock is repressurized, this time with air from the house. The inner door opens, and the cycle is complete. Reverse for someone entering the house. Essentially, a home airlock would serve as a means of preserving low-CO2 air. (A dedicated mudroom would also perform a similar function, though a mechanical airlock system would be much more efficient.)