|
|
|
|
|
|
by cousin_it
1738 days ago
|
|
|
Haha, interesting thought. For example if I have a bunch of dollars to spend on promoting renewable energy and such, how cost-effective is it to just... buy an oil well and sit on it? I mean, it will raise the price of oil, thus pushing people to develop better substitutes. And it has a certain beauty in not requiring any government involvement, private people can do this just fine. But it will also make current oil producers richer, and increase their incentive to find new oilfields (if only to sell them to you). So that's the most direct way to interpret "keeping carbon in the ground", and I'm not sure it makes sense. Is there another way that makes more sense? |
|
|