[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.