[mullingitover]

The idea of Exxon becoming “net zero” is a howler and we can’t let them get away with it.

We need to price the carbon emissions at the source. If they want to pass on the external carbon costs to their customers, so be it.

[Dylan16807]

> The idea of Exxon becoming “net zero” is a howler and we can’t let them get away with it.

Get away with what, a talking point?

> We need to price the carbon emissions at the source. If they want to pass on the external carbon costs to their customers, so be it.

What if a power company buys a bunch of natural gas, with emissions already paid, then captures the burned carbon instead of emitting it?

[wizofaus]

> then captures the burned carbon instead of emitting it?

Presumably the only reason they would is if they could get paid carbon credits for doing so.

[Dylan16807]

They'd better be able to get credits for it! It would be pretty awful to charge for emissions whether they emit or not, because then they have no incentive to decrease emissions.

But giving them credits seems pointlessly complicated to me, compared to just saying "no emissions, no charge".

[PaulHoule]

Or alternately get charged carbon taxes if they don’t.

[plagiarist]

Stop making destruction of the ecosystem an economic externality? What's next, pricing human rights abuses to prevent US companies from profiting off of foreign slave labor?

[dathos]

I think you fail to realize how the profitability of this industry subsidizes a lot of issues that look to be crisises on their own. Plastics being too cheap to make so we don’t really do recycling or reducing to name one.