> Wouldn't you expect a carbon tax to be similar in price to the cost to get the carbon back out of the air?
If the goal of the tax is to fund carbon removal and if that removal can be done immediately after emission without any damage being done to the environment, then yes. Otherwise you'd want to factor in the damage done.
If someone injected you with snake venom and argued that they should only be fined the amount it costs you for antivenom without consideration of the damage to your body, you would not accept that.
If the goal of the tax is to fund carbon removal and if that removal can be done immediately after emission without any damage being done to the environment, then yes. Otherwise you'd want to factor in the damage done.
If someone injected you with snake venom and argued that they should only be fined the amount it costs you for antivenom without consideration of the damage to your body, you would not accept that.