We should make extraction expensive enough to capture the externalities.

The problem with fossil fuels isn’t that they pollute, but that most of the negative impact of that pollution is borne by others. This results in an artificially low price which distorts the market and results in economically inefficient overuse.

Capture that cost by making producers pay a tax of the corresponding amount, and market forces will use the “right” amount of fossil fuels in ways that are a net benefit.

I agree in principle. How do we set the price on emissions? Is there a market based approach? Maybe some form of credits that directly fund carbon capture?

I don’t think there’s a market based approach. Ultimately you need smart people to sit down and study the problem and come up with an approximate dollars per ton in costs.

I think this is the right idea but I also think measuring the harm is a really hard problem. Polluters should pay for cleanup. But how much does that cost really? How do we decide? Sure we can put smart people on the problem but what solution will they choose? I don’t mean this dismissively. It’s one of the biggest questions of our time. This is what we need to solve.

Batteries and EVs are the production side. Reducing demand is e.g. requiring you to drive fewer miles. You get a car that doesn't run on petroleum and CO2 goes down while vehicle miles can stay the same or go up.

> Batteries and EVs are the production side.

That’s what I said?

> Reducing demand is e.g. requiring you to drive fewer miles.

Demand can be reduced by increasing fuel prices. Either at the pump through consumption tax or at production. The effect remains the same.

> You get a car that doesn't run on petroleum and CO2 goes down while vehicle miles can stay the same or go up.

Obviously. What does that have to do with disincentivizing fossil fuel production or consumption?

Carbon tax or something similar.

Making it illegal is always an option, and one that many countries are considering