4 ms·
Direct Air Capture (DAC) will always be more expensive than reducing emissions, but it could be useful to set the baseline cost in a progressive carbon tax such
by lordswork 3y ago
Direct Air Capture (DAC) will always be more expensive than reducing emissions, but it could be useful to set the baseline cost in a progressive carbon tax such that all emissions are taxed at a rate that will cover removing them via DAC, creating incentives to reduce emissions and reduce DAC costs.
- inglor_cz 3y agoThat would actually also incentivize the greatest emitters to come up with more efficient methods of capturing CO2.
- empyrrhicist 3y agoOr, more cheaply, non-emitting alternatives
- inglor_cz 3y agoCombination of both makes the most sense. There won't likely be battery-based passenger jets anytime soon, for example. Meanwhile, humanity is so mixed up that "everyone" has some family members far away and it would be cruel to deny them the travel. In that scenario, let the airline think about carbon capture, too.
- empyrrhicist 3y agoI mean, sure - I don't think banning CC is sensible. I just have thermodynamic doubts about whether it's ever going to make much sense, and in the short term it seems to be a ploy by fossil fuel interests.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]