For electricity, it seems like a no-brainer, but that's not the only emitter. I wonder what cost for carbon capture they used (unfortunately the article is payw

For electricity, it seems like a no-brainer, but that's not the only emitter. I wonder what cost for carbon capture they used (unfortunately the article is paywalled). It seems to me like the obvious solution to the problem would be a CO2 tax equal to the estimated cost of carbon capture. It should not be higher - that would be yet another example of moralism that plagues so many environmental policies. Introduce that, properly monitor emissions (especially things like methane leaks), and the problem will quickly solve itself. Anything that remains is the edge cases where it is more economical to do carbon capture - so use the tax to do just that. That also covers cases where it makes sense to do the change more slowly. No need to decide or argue back and forth whether someone can or cannot do it faster. You emit, you pay, you don't want to pay, you don't emit. Changing quickly is too costly? That's fine, you pay. Oh, it's not that costly when compared to the tax? Guess you change, then. Also fine. Want to generate electricity from lignite? I'm not going to argue, I'm just going to watch you go bankrupt... and if you don't, there probably was some good reason for doing that and forcing the opposite would have had some unintended side effects.