[r00fus]

> It also allows us to put a direct price point on CO2.

The problem is that the price on this will be severely underestimated. Every year we hear our estimates of climate damage are underestimated.

Then the wildfires around the world and in the arctic started becoming to frequent to ignore.

The real problem is that the extraction industries will fight tooth & nail to not have subsidies much less additional cost - and they have won and continue to win to this day.

[lucb1e]

How can the price be underestimated if we can pay commercial providers to build more of those plants? At minimum, it will be the cost price of doing this work, which (at some minimum) is hard to argue about.

I guess you mean the underestimated impact, i.e. "cost" to society (insofar as human lives have a € value), if we don't do anything? Because that's a different discussion. I presume that lawmakers would be in agreement that we need to curb emissions, otherwise it's an entirely different conversation to be having (and flashbacks from 10-20 years ago).