5 ms·
> then captures the burned carbon instead of emitting it? Presumably the only reason they would is if they could get paid carbon credits for doing so.
by wizofaus 3y ago
> then captures the burned carbon instead of emitting it?
Presumably the only reason they would is if they could get paid carbon credits for doing so.
- Dylan16807 3y agoThey'd better be able to get credits for it! It would be pretty awful to charge for emissions whether they emit or not, because then they have no incentive to decrease emissions. But giving them credits seems pointlessly complicated to me, compared to just saying "no emissions, no charge".
- PaulHoule 3y agoOr alternately get charged carbon taxes if they don’t.