4 ms·
What’s the cost of sequestering each ton of CO2? $30? $90? Prohibitively high for some purposes? Well that seems like a relatively good place to start. Having a
by 0xfffafaCrash 4y ago
What’s the cost of sequestering each ton of CO2? $30? $90? Prohibitively high for some purposes? Well that seems like a relatively good place to start. Having a positive number adjustable based on large scale statistics does a hell of a lot more to fix market incentives than pricing it at a constant $0 and banning one specific thing (in a way which can’t even be enforced) as a political gimmick.
- nells 4y agoYou can also price it at $0 and NOT ban it.
- 0xfffafaCrash 4y agoSure, but that does nothing to help with the tragedy of the commons caused by unaddressed negative externalities…
- nells 4y agoThis is more like the politician's syllogism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism
- 0xfffafaCrash 4y agoExcept it actually addresses a serious problem on two fronts 1) reducing the ability to profit off of actions that cause environmental damage thereby aligning the market interest to reduce such actions 2) funding the investment in reversing the damage whereas your suggestion above is doing literally nothing to help…
- piva00 4y agoAnd why would you price it at $0 if it's already known it does cause damages. Just because you can't fairly price it doesn't mean it costs zero, that's an absurd logic...