Demanding an increase in the cost of adding CO2 would be effective for the organizations and people in that jurisdiction as long as that rule lasts. It's a grea

Demanding an increase in the cost of adding CO2 would be effective for the organizations and people in that jurisdiction as long as that rule lasts. It's a great stop-gap mechanism. But a technical solution to lower the cost of removing a ton of CO2 is superior to a political solution to raise the cost of adding a ton of CO2. It's better because it's a permanent step forwards, not one that has to be held on to, and it's better because it better aligns with everyone's incentives. The political solution is vulnerable to changing societal and cultural winds. It takes constant expenditure of political fervor to maintain as a law, and is always vulnerable to a political competitor suggesting "...don't want to pay that $100USD/ton fee? Help me gain power and I'll help you gain money." Once the technology exists to take the cost to remove it down by an order of magnitude, this effort no longer needs to be expended and the incentive to remove it no longer exists. Modern fuel-injected and turbocharged engines do not only have lower emissions, they are more powerful and require lower maintenance than carbureted big-block engines. And if you've driven a Tesla you know that a battery electric vehicle can be both better for the environment and a better car (for everything but extremely long-range journeys) than an internal-combustion vehicle. Similarly, Lets Encrypt making HTTPS as easy and as cheap as non-encrypted sites did far more to increase the number of secure websites than years of advocacy begging website owners to get certificates and browser vendors to increase the equivalent of fees.