A charitable interpretation of the OPs suggestion is that this regulation would make the most sense in high to mid density areas, where land is at a premium. An

A charitable interpretation of the OPs suggestion is that this regulation would make the most sense in high to mid density areas, where land is at a premium. And any practical implementation of this measure would almost assuredly come with financing assistance and some sort of assurance that the electricity produced has an offtaker agreement that would eventually result in the project breaking even. Arguing for more solar instead of CO2 capture has nothing to do with trying to force an agenda and lifestyle on everybody. It is merely recognizing that of the options that are currently available to us or will be available to us in time to mitigate the worst aspects of climate change, solar, wind and storage are currently our best bets. Wishful thinking and breathless press releases aren't going to change that. This is about first principles, not agendas. Feel free to counter argue with something other than wishful thinking and grievance politics.