5 ms·

Carbon capture has always seemed to me to be a means for companies to get paid both to produce carbon and then to clean it up.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
As they should, provided the consumer is paying and using the carbon. Pay an airline to take you somewhere and produce carbon, pay someone to remove that carbon.
- SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
  Should get paid? Or should clean it up? The problem is this is energy and resources that could be spent on actually solving the problem at its source instead of finding ways to maintain the status quo.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    cleaning it up is solving the problem.
    - SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
      Is it? Or is it just kicking the can down the road? We're trying to clean up crumbs off the floor with a machine that runs on cookies.
      - lesuorac 2y ago
        It's an improvement no? It's like paying a fee when buying a car battery or car tires unless you return an old one. The fee needs to be overly pegged to inflation or something though otherwise you end up with the glass / aluminum cans problem.
        SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
        The difference here is that it's not deposit to encourage recycling, it's just a tax, and it's not a discrete thing you're getting taxed on, it's everything. It's costing everybody more and people are being paid twice. I'm thinking especially of the companies trying to sequester carbon in the wells they empty - they end up making money both ways.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Again, seems reasonable. If you dont like paying them to pump the oil and dispose of the carbon, then don't consume the oil and create the emissions.
        gruez 2y ago
        >The difference here is that it's not deposit to encourage recycling, it's just a tax, It's a tax to encourage the alternatives. If an electric car costs more than an ICE car, then taxing ICE cars through a carbon tax will make the electric car more attractive, at least on the margins. > It's costing everybody more and people are being paid twice. I'm thinking especially of the companies trying to sequester carbon in the wells they empty - they end up making money both ways. Similar logic to the above applies. Oil companies might be able to charge more for a barrel of oil, but it's not like that barrel of oil is suddenly more useful. That's bad for oil companies because it makes the economics of their product worse. They have to do more "stuff" to sell a given barrel of oil, but their competitors (solar panels or whatever) don't.
        lesuorac 2y ago
        > I'm thinking especially of the companies trying to sequester carbon in the wells they empty - they end up making money both ways. Sure, but the reason solar panels are popular is because they're (mostly) the cheapest way to generate power. By adding an additional tax to petroleum products based on say sequestering costs (as opposed to some made-up I won't chop down a forest offset) it encourages non-petroleum products to be used. It's basically a tariff for clean energy.
      - Nasrudith 2y ago
        Operating under that sort of nihilism, why bother saving babies if they are just going to die of old age at best?
  - gruez 2y ago
    >Should get paid? Or should clean it up? The entity who caused the pollution should be responsible for paying to clean it up. For logistical purposes it might make sense to tax at the point of production/sale rather than actual emission, eg. taxes at gas stations rather than some sort of monitoring system on every car. > The problem is this is energy and resources that could be spent on actually solving the problem at its source instead of finding ways to maintain the status quo. If the alternatives are actually cheaper, the market will naturally work itself out, because polluters would be incentivized to switch. Nobody uses plastic utensils in place of reusable ones, not because the government banned them, but because everyone knows the latter are so much cheaper.
    - sweeter 2y ago
      You literally can't just "clean it up" it's not possible. This is there American hyper-individualistic mindset at work. The problem and solution is cut and dry, anything else is a comfortable lie.
      - gruez 2y ago
        >You literally can't just "clean it up" it's not possible. explain? at least with carbon since it's fungible and global it's probably the easiest to clean up, compared to exxon trying to clean an oil spill or whatever.
- disantlor 2y ago
  aka we pay their negative externalities? no
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I think everyone should pay for their own externalities. Put gas in your car, and you are generating the externality, so expect to pay some company a gas tax to remove that carbon. Buy electricity from coal and the power plant is the emitter, who should pay for capture. However, if you are a electricity customer, expect that cost to be passed on to you on your bill.
pornel 2y ago
Who's going to pay for carbon capture? Definitely not the current polluters who benefit from fossil fuel prices that don't include the cost to clean that up. This is like a fossil fuel subsidy from a debt left to someone else to pay.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- gruez 2y ago
  >Who's going to pay for carbon capture? Definitely not the current polluters who benefit from fossil fuel prices that don't include the cost to clean that up. Carbon emitters through carbon pricing schemes. They already cover more than 20% of worldwide emissions, with China joining a few years ago. [1] https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1424,quality=80,format=auto/content-assets/images/20231007_EPC779.png https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1424,quality=8...
WhyNotHugo 2y ago
The old "we can sell you the solution to the problem we sold you" trick.
- toenail 2y ago
  Ah, the old consumers have zero responsibility trick.
tommiegannert 2y ago
Or a way to take money from green investment funds: you're never finished, but you're always only two years away. Both directly from governments and from mandates on the oil companies to do green investments.
- Aachen 2y ago
  Cite anything that says we're two years away from using carbon capture to clean up the climate This has never been the point. Why the strawman argument?

s1artibartfast 2y ago

As they should, provided the consumer is paying and using the carbon. Pay an airline to take you somewhere and produce carbon, pay someone to remove that carbon.

SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
Should get paid? Or should clean it up? The problem is this is energy and resources that could be spent on actually solving the problem at its source instead of finding ways to maintain the status quo.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  cleaning it up is solving the problem.
  - SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
    Is it? Or is it just kicking the can down the road? We're trying to clean up crumbs off the floor with a machine that runs on cookies.
    - lesuorac 2y ago
      It's an improvement no? It's like paying a fee when buying a car battery or car tires unless you return an old one. The fee needs to be overly pegged to inflation or something though otherwise you end up with the glass / aluminum cans problem.
      - SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
        The difference here is that it's not deposit to encourage recycling, it's just a tax, and it's not a discrete thing you're getting taxed on, it's everything. It's costing everybody more and people are being paid twice. I'm thinking especially of the companies trying to sequester carbon in the wells they empty - they end up making money both ways.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Again, seems reasonable. If you dont like paying them to pump the oil and dispose of the carbon, then don't consume the oil and create the emissions.
        gruez 2y ago
        >The difference here is that it's not deposit to encourage recycling, it's just a tax, It's a tax to encourage the alternatives. If an electric car costs more than an ICE car, then taxing ICE cars through a carbon tax will make the electric car more attractive, at least on the margins. > It's costing everybody more and people are being paid twice. I'm thinking especially of the companies trying to sequester carbon in the wells they empty - they end up making money both ways. Similar logic to the above applies. Oil companies might be able to charge more for a barrel of oil, but it's not like that barrel of oil is suddenly more useful. That's bad for oil companies because it makes the economics of their product worse. They have to do more "stuff" to sell a given barrel of oil, but their competitors (solar panels or whatever) don't.
        lesuorac 2y ago
        > I'm thinking especially of the companies trying to sequester carbon in the wells they empty - they end up making money both ways. Sure, but the reason solar panels are popular is because they're (mostly) the cheapest way to generate power. By adding an additional tax to petroleum products based on say sequestering costs (as opposed to some made-up I won't chop down a forest offset) it encourages non-petroleum products to be used. It's basically a tariff for clean energy.
    - Nasrudith 2y ago
      Operating under that sort of nihilism, why bother saving babies if they are just going to die of old age at best?
- gruez 2y ago
  >Should get paid? Or should clean it up? The entity who caused the pollution should be responsible for paying to clean it up. For logistical purposes it might make sense to tax at the point of production/sale rather than actual emission, eg. taxes at gas stations rather than some sort of monitoring system on every car. > The problem is this is energy and resources that could be spent on actually solving the problem at its source instead of finding ways to maintain the status quo. If the alternatives are actually cheaper, the market will naturally work itself out, because polluters would be incentivized to switch. Nobody uses plastic utensils in place of reusable ones, not because the government banned them, but because everyone knows the latter are so much cheaper.
  - sweeter 2y ago
    You literally can't just "clean it up" it's not possible. This is there American hyper-individualistic mindset at work. The problem and solution is cut and dry, anything else is a comfortable lie.
    - gruez 2y ago
      >You literally can't just "clean it up" it's not possible. explain? at least with carbon since it's fungible and global it's probably the easiest to clean up, compared to exxon trying to clean an oil spill or whatever.
disantlor 2y ago
aka we pay their negative externalities? no
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I think everyone should pay for their own externalities. Put gas in your car, and you are generating the externality, so expect to pay some company a gas tax to remove that carbon. Buy electricity from coal and the power plant is the emitter, who should pay for capture. However, if you are a electricity customer, expect that cost to be passed on to you on your bill.

pornel 2y ago

Who's going to pay for carbon capture? Definitely not the current polluters who benefit from fossil fuel prices that don't include the cost to clean that up. This is like a fossil fuel subsidy from a debt left to someone else to pay.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
gruez 2y ago
>Who's going to pay for carbon capture? Definitely not the current polluters who benefit from fossil fuel prices that don't include the cost to clean that up. Carbon emitters through carbon pricing schemes. They already cover more than 20% of worldwide emissions, with China joining a few years ago. [1] https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1424,quality=80,format=auto/content-assets/images/20231007_EPC779.png https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1424,quality=8...

WhyNotHugo 2y ago

The old "we can sell you the solution to the problem we sold you" trick.

toenail 2y ago
Ah, the old consumers have zero responsibility trick.

tommiegannert 2y ago

Or a way to take money from green investment funds: you're never finished, but you're always only two years away. Both directly from governments and from mandates on the oil companies to do green investments.

Aachen 2y ago
Cite anything that says we're two years away from using carbon capture to clean up the climate This has never been the point. Why the strawman argument?