> it would diminish the sense of urgency and discourage the much more prudent and affordable approach of simply reducing emissions. If air capture costs more,

> it would diminish the sense of urgency and discourage the much more prudent and affordable approach of simply reducing emissions. If air capture costs more, then simple economics will keep us more focused on reducing emissions. If it somehow costs less, then doing the air capture is a win. Most likely, air capture will cost more in some cases (power plant emissions), and less in other cases (long-haul jets). Ideally we'd set a price on carbon, award credits for verifiable air capture/sequestration, and let the market sort all this out.