“while society wants to see emissions reduced, nobody wants to pay for it.” Yeah, right, oil is cheaper, of course.
It's their own profits they are talking about, amazing people fall for this.
What about us?
What's stopping us from passing punitive and progressive taxes on their scope 3 GHG emissions?
Forget O&G.
Nobody wants to pay for full electrification, despite having readily available tech. You can't argue the opposite with a straight face.
FWIW, the author conflates CO2 storage as enhanced oil recovery applications only.
The architecture that economists and climate scientists both agree will move the needle on this is a revenue neutral carbon tax. A revenue neutral carbon tax taxes carbon, and then returns 100% of that tax money back to people equally. Anyone who uses less than the average amount of carbon - which is a majority of the population - since the top users use so much, get paid in this scheme.
People might not want to pay, but they don't have to. Excessive users, the non-majority, pay. People, on average, don't pay - they get paid.
The architecture already exists, it's already law in certain countries, and anyone ignoring this fundamental reality is not being serious.
