I think you’d have to think about the market equilibrium here. So for instance, if the price of capturing a tCO2e falls to $0.1/tonne, then more people will want to buy them, and the impact of a marginal tonne captured [1] might be lower. More generally, more people would be doing climate related projects, because the administration would be more welcoming of them.
In contrast, under $1/tonne, less people might want to buy them, and thus the marginal impact of a tonne captured might be higher. Similarly, perhaps fewer people would choose to carry out climate related projects, so the ones that exist might be more valuable.
Would it be 10x higher? No, probably not, but then again a presidency probably wouldn’t make carbon capture 10x more cost-effective (maybe 1.2x? I’m just shooting from the hip here).
[1]: or, closer to my own heart, the Shapley value of each tonne captured.
I think you’d have to think about the market equilibrium here. So for instance, if the price of capturing a tCO2e falls to $0.1/tonne, then more people will want to buy them, and the impact of a marginal tonne captured [1] might be lower. More generally, more people would be doing climate related projects, because the administration would be more welcoming of them.
In contrast, under $1/tonne, less people might want to buy them, and thus the marginal impact of a tonne captured might be higher. Similarly, perhaps fewer people would choose to carry out climate related projects, so the ones that exist might be more valuable.
Would it be 10x higher? No, probably not, but then again a presidency probably wouldn’t make carbon capture 10x more cost-effective (maybe 1.2x? I’m just shooting from the hip here).
[1]: or, closer to my own heart, the Shapley value of each tonne captured.