> I can't see how CCS (carbon capture and storage) can ever be viable economically. Taxes. Carbon emissions are externalities, regulating them is entirely com

> I can't see how CCS (carbon capture and storage) can ever be viable economically. Taxes. Carbon emissions are externalities, regulating them is entirely compatible, if not mandatory, with maintaining a free market. > Why would anyone agree to pay for it. Why do you agree to pay taxes? Oh wait, you don't. You are forced to pay them. > And if we mandate it wouldn't it make fossil products way too expensive and therefore uncompetitive? Isn't that what you'd want? > They are already losing to renewables in some regions. "Some regions" are just low-hanging fruit. > I just don't see the logic in shitting around and then paying somebody to clean up the shit. It's much easier to just stop shitting. Only if you stop eating, which you would probably be forced to do if you were to give up on hydrocarbon-based products such as fertilizer. Also, you'll die. Alternatively, if you were to just "shit somewhere else" instead, you will need a way to store and transform that shit. That's exactly what carbon sequestration is.