For those wanting to discuss solutions, and not just problems, how about a wide-ranging carbon tax?
Specifically, a carbon tax set at The cost of recapture that then goes toward recapture (within the US, audited).
So for example, if this were applied to gasoline, it would just over double the cost but give zero-emissions. This is something engineers like us could easily afford in our personal lives. Worst case scenario, I imagine all things we buy would double in price.
However, as billions (if not trillions) get spent on such a technology it would hopefully get more efficient.
So perhaps a rollout schedule of:
2020 - 1% of recapture cost
2021 - 2% of recapture cost
2022 - 4% of recapture cost
2025 - 10% of recapture cost (and so on)
Basic food items for survival could have their capture cost subsidized by the government, so as not to harm those on the brink of poverty.
The brilliancy of this simple economic solution is that if meat produces way too much carbon, the cost will start to reflect that, and people will gradually move to more efficient foods or have an incentive to find a way to make more carbon-neutral ways to make meat.
> This is something engineers like us could easily afford in our personal lives
This is a clue on why just carbon tax won't do. An extra tax would hit the people who're most economically stressed while the top 10% will continue living their lives as is. Any tax on carbon should be accompanied with a negative tax or UBI for the low income earners. Moreover, since 50% of emissions are done by the top 10% income earners [1], there should ideally be a higher income tax which should direct go into funding R&D of carbon capture systems.
Specifically, a carbon tax set at The cost of recapture that then goes toward recapture (within the US, audited).
So for example, if this were applied to gasoline, it would just over double the cost but give zero-emissions. This is something engineers like us could easily afford in our personal lives. Worst case scenario, I imagine all things we buy would double in price.
However, as billions (if not trillions) get spent on such a technology it would hopefully get more efficient.
So perhaps a rollout schedule of: 2020 - 1% of recapture cost 2021 - 2% of recapture cost 2022 - 4% of recapture cost 2025 - 10% of recapture cost (and so on)
Basic food items for survival could have their capture cost subsidized by the government, so as not to harm those on the brink of poverty.
The brilliancy of this simple economic solution is that if meat produces way too much carbon, the cost will start to reflect that, and people will gradually move to more efficient foods or have an incentive to find a way to make more carbon-neutral ways to make meat.