5 Comments
User's avatar
Nicholas R Karp's avatar

Your argument makes perfect sense economically, but only provided that offsets are consistently measured, auditable, and trusted. The incentives to cheat are great: billions of dollars for a number the buyer can't measure directly! At this point I personally write off all carbon offsets as performative marketing nonsense -- sometimes unjust, as some of it is real: but I don't have the knowledge or tools to know which. These obstacles can likely be overcome but it will take effort and there will be setbacks.

A greater challenge is getting deep, visceral acceptance by the population with political control. Japan and Germany shut down their nuclear plants because of knee-jerk panic, not careful economic calculation or analysis of risk.

Changing a process to prevent emissions is directly measurable on site and less vulnerable to political whim. If I ran an enterprise that emitted a lot of CO2 my first instinct would be to keep the mob from shutting me down, with the efficiency of mitigation a distant second -- absent a strong popular consensus for carbon pricing.

I'm really excited by the possibilities of carbon capture -- but suspect that the social engineering will be at least as challenging as the physical.

Mark A Kruger's avatar

Interesting. How feasible is 10$ per ton? how far to get there?

Eudoxia's avatar

Absolutely agree. And don't forget nuclear power which doesn't produce CO2...