> But without an incentive like this the carbon capture tech will develop very slowly I don't think that's a big issue. If the tech was economically viable it

> But without an incentive like this the carbon capture tech will develop very slowly I don't think that's a big issue. If the tech was economically viable it wouldn't be hard to lobby for such regulation. The positive net effect is easy to prove and argue for. I think what's stopping carbon capture has more to do with the expected efficacy of it. I mean, when you have ~400 ppm CO2 in the air it's a bit like reassembling a broken glass. Sure, you can improve every process with engineering, but there are also physical boundary conditions that look pretty bleak for most forms of CC. > even if we did decide to zero out our emissions and take the massive economic hit, it would still not account for the two centuries of CO2 buildup already in the atmosphere. Perhaps one step at a time? We are absolutely nowhere near zero emissions, we don't even have a plan. Our entire civilization runs on hydrocarbons today. Nothing against CC research per se, but it doesn't look like a basket where we should put many eggs in.