Why on earth would I read the article when the title is provably false? Nevertheless, my point still stands. Even if it were cheap it would still be more expen

Why on earth would I read the article when the title is provably false? Nevertheless, my point still stands. Even if it were cheap it would still be more expensive, and this coal CEO would be making the exact same claims. It is, however, a very cheap way of removing carbon from the atmosphere. It's just that the organization who is properly incentivized to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is society, not coal companies. In this sense it is much cheaper to scrub exhaust, which is practically 100% carbon dioxide than to scrub the atmosphere. It's irrelevant what the coal ceo thinks is cost effective, because he's not the one who benefits.