3 ms·
Making suboptimal investments is also a tax of a sort. Presumably the carbon capture projects that are optimal deployments of capital are already happening. If
by yojo 7y ago
Making suboptimal investments is also a tax of a sort. Presumably the carbon capture projects that are optimal deployments of capital are already happening. If you want other “investments” to happen, you’re going to need to subsidize them.
So I think the question is: “is the subsidy required to trigger the investment <= $9/ton of CO2 removed”. If the answer is no, we’re still better off deploying capital dumping sand on beaches and otherwise letting investments happen via standard market mechanisms.
- jillesvangurp 7y agoIn a hypothetical world where you can convince people that spending a few trillion like that is a great idea, yes. In the real world, stuff like this goes a lot smoother if there's a plan to get some form of ROI. An investment without a economical return is more of an expense than an investment. I'd say other geoengineering projects have a better chance of getting funded because there's an obvious ROI.