3 ms·

Carbon capture is obviously inconsequential; but it would seem that even emissions reduction is a useless endeavor, wouldn't it? All extracted carbon will be e

Carbon capture is obviously inconsequential; but it would seem that even emissions reduction is a useless endeavor, wouldn't it? All extracted carbon will be eventually burned. Burning it sooner or later it's not such a big deal. What we need to do, for a start, is to close the damn oil wells! Just stop unearthing millions of years worth of captured carbon and putting them back into the biosphere.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> All extracted carbon will be eventually burned. Extraction operates on supply and demand. When people stop demanding it, they'll stop digging it out of the ground. There are two ways to achieve this: 1) You make burning it more expensive (carbon tax). 2) You make alternatives to burning it cheaper. You can do both at once. In fact you want to, because the first one gives the second one economies of scale and the second one reduces the economic impact of the first one. Preventing extraction is pointless because it has the same effect as the first one except that instead of the money being collected as a tax that could be refunded to the population as a tax credit, it goes to the people who are still doing the remaining extraction. We could, however, stop subsidizing extraction.
- exyi 2y ago
  > Preventing extraction is pointless because it has the same effect as the first one Yes, but it might raise oil prices, effectively making the carbon tax apply globally. Unless OPEC just compensates by increasing production. IMHO carbon tax indeed better tool for EU/US, given that most of oil production out of "our" control
  - mistrial9 2y ago
    > might raise oil prices, effectively making the carbon tax apply globally that statement upon examination does not pass scrutiny for weaslewords
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    > Yes, but it might raise oil prices, effectively making the carbon tax apply globally. Which major countries could already do through tariffs on any country not collecting it, without giving the money to OPEC.
- sgu999 2y ago
  > There are two ways to achieve this: 1) You make burning it more expensive (carbon tax). 2) You make alternatives to burning it cheaper. A market that relies solely on prices as an incentive is unlikely to be the right tool for what's at stake. What would be the price of the natural habitat of the last wild elephants? A billion dollars? Let's hope Elon doesn't feel like building a gigafactory right there.
  - chpatrick 2y ago
    There's always going to be a market with prices whether you like it or not. The only thing you can do is ensuring that the prices reflect the amount of damage to the environment.
    - sgu999 2y ago
      You can have a market without relying solely on it, that's what we do for many things already. Driving everything through a market is quite a recent development. So no, it's not "the only you can do".
      - chpatrick 2y ago
        I'm saying some form of market is inevitable, the best you can do is try to control it.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

> All extracted carbon will be eventually burned. Extraction operates on supply and demand. When people stop demanding it, they'll stop digging it out of the ground. There are two ways to achieve this: 1) You make burning it more expensive (carbon tax). 2) You make alternatives to burning it cheaper. You can do both at once. In fact you want to, because the first one gives the second one economies of scale and the second one reduces the economic impact of the first one. Preventing extraction is pointless because it has the same effect as the first one except that instead of the money being collected as a tax that could be refunded to the population as a tax credit, it goes to the people who are still doing the remaining extraction. We could, however, stop subsidizing extraction.

exyi 2y ago
> Preventing extraction is pointless because it has the same effect as the first one Yes, but it might raise oil prices, effectively making the carbon tax apply globally. Unless OPEC just compensates by increasing production. IMHO carbon tax indeed better tool for EU/US, given that most of oil production out of "our" control
- mistrial9 2y ago
  > might raise oil prices, effectively making the carbon tax apply globally that statement upon examination does not pass scrutiny for weaslewords
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  > Yes, but it might raise oil prices, effectively making the carbon tax apply globally. Which major countries could already do through tariffs on any country not collecting it, without giving the money to OPEC.
sgu999 2y ago
> There are two ways to achieve this: 1) You make burning it more expensive (carbon tax). 2) You make alternatives to burning it cheaper. A market that relies solely on prices as an incentive is unlikely to be the right tool for what's at stake. What would be the price of the natural habitat of the last wild elephants? A billion dollars? Let's hope Elon doesn't feel like building a gigafactory right there.
- chpatrick 2y ago
  There's always going to be a market with prices whether you like it or not. The only thing you can do is ensuring that the prices reflect the amount of damage to the environment.
  - sgu999 2y ago
    You can have a market without relying solely on it, that's what we do for many things already. Driving everything through a market is quite a recent development. So no, it's not "the only you can do".
    - chpatrick 2y ago
      I'm saying some form of market is inevitable, the best you can do is try to control it.