[0xfffafaCrash]

What’s the cost of sequestering each ton of CO2? $30? $90? Prohibitively high for some purposes? Well that seems like a relatively good place to start. Having a positive number adjustable based on large scale statistics does a hell of a lot more to fix market incentives than pricing it at a constant $0 and banning one specific thing (in a way which can’t even be enforced) as a political gimmick.

[nells]

You can also price it at $0 and NOT ban it.

[piva00]

And why would you price it at $0 if it's already known it does cause damages. Just because you can't fairly price it doesn't mean it costs zero, that's an absurd logic...

[0xfffafaCrash]

Sure, but that does nothing to help with the tragedy of the commons caused by unaddressed negative externalities…

[nells]

This is more like the politician's syllogism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism

[0xfffafaCrash]

Except it actually addresses a serious problem on two fronts

1) reducing the ability to profit off of actions that cause environmental damage thereby aligning the market interest to reduce such actions

2) funding the investment in reversing the damage

whereas your suggestion above is doing literally nothing to help…