Even if you were not pulling the numbers out of, er, personal portions of your anatomy, what is true now about the cost of an action is not necessarily going to be true forever.
Imagine that, let's say, the US government decides they're going to try to reverse all of their CO2 contributions for the past 20 years over the next 20 years. And let's say they decide to do this, essentially, by auction. Companies will submit bids for amounts of CO2 that they can capture, and the price at which they can do it. The first year, most of the bids will probably come in at around $50/ton. A few will be a bit lower, and all of those people will get the CO2 reduction contracts for that year (plus enough of the $50 bids to meet that year's quota).
But, a few companies, either by actually doing the work or by researching new methods, will probably figure out ways to sequester carbon for $40/ton. Or they'll figure out ways to sequester carbon while making some usable product that they can sell, or the like. People are clever, and when you give them an incentive to do something, they'll figure out a way to do it. Those people will win next year's bids. The year after, some clever soul's figured out a way to do it for $30/ton. And so on. Before long, the winning bidders are the ones that can sequester multiple tons for $1.
Don't believe me? Look at the cost curves for solar panels. http://theenergycollective.com/josephrom... . If we start investing in carbon fixation of one sort or another, we're likely to see a similar drop in costs.
You are making claims without offering supporting data. This is known as giving an opinion.
When considering costs you would need to know the cost for action as opposed to the cost for inaction. Otherwise you are not looking at the true cost. As an example, it would cost you $2,000 to paint your car and you chose not to do so and the body rusts into a worthless heap within two years. The car would have been worth $20,000 in average condition. Now it is only worth scrap value. Which is truly the costliest option? To paint your car now or to let it rust into a worthless heap within 2 years? Now, apply this to our planet. The only planet currently available to us for our habitation. Do you want to spend the $500 trillion dollars (by your estimate) to save it or lose the only place we can inhabit and all due to our neglect of the planet? Any person that is capable of reasoned thought would not hesitate with the answer. We save the only planet we are currently capable of inhabiting and for our future habitation purposes. There is NO alternative available to us. We simply do not take the loss, toss it into the scrap heap and go get another one. ... An added note to consider. The longer you wait to apply the paint job, the more expensive the paint job becomes due to the added damages as a result of not painting it sooner. Sooner or later, no amount of paint and no costs paid will save the body.
Simple answer, whoever digs up the fossil fuels removes an equivalent or greater amount of CO2 from the atmosphere and stores it in a suitable location. No tax or even government needed other then law enforcement.
Estimates are that it would raise 1.5-2 cents/kW-hr to sequester, which means that the shock to economy would be less than many other fluctuations in fossil fuel costs.
The cost of mitigation would be much higher.
Who is going to pay it? There are 7 billion people in the world. Let's say 1/4 of them live in first world countries, that's nearly $300,000 per person, what's in your savings account?
Why would we need to sequester if we 'stopped emitting CO2'?
I don't understand ...
But you can be sure, Al Gore and his ilk would get richer.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/clai...
This is an example of the thinking of the 'saviors of the earth'. It is only money that will save the earth. Of course it is not theirs, it is only ours.
Greenies have no idea what they are referring to.
Jerry: You better HOPE that Obama doesn't get that 30 cents.
You check your math the same way you check your facts, don't you?
no price is too high to stop runaway global warming, I'm in, I have 30 cents in change left over after 'Hope and Change'
reduce CO2 to 350 ppm, it would cost at cost 500 trillion dollars. Is this a big price to pay or a small price to pay?
