Should the government provide subsidies for companies developing carbon capture technologies?

No

Yes, and also increase spending for renewable energy and reforestation

No, the government should invest in planting more trees to capture carbon instead

No, tax carbon emissions instead

Yes, but only in tandem with supporting renewable energy production.

No, they are a largely inefficient means of reducing carbon since they focus only on reversing environmental harm rather than reducing it and can be used to justify further carbon emissions.

No, Carbon capture is not an effective method of combating climate change. We should focus our efforts elsewhere.

Climate change is an absurd scam that challenges human intelligence. The only thing we need to do is minimize environmental damage and plant more trees.

They should, but they should also, make it so they have to show results or where the money is going to. So, it does not get spent improperly.

No because carbon capture will incentivize fossil fuel companies to increase drilling and will not have a big impact on mitigating greenhouse gas emissions

supportive in principle as a potential tool, but with careful oversight to ensure it doesn't become an excuse to continue fossil fuel reliance; prioritize emissions reduction

No, for the sake of low taxes, low national debt, checks and balances, weak government, federalism, and capitalism.

Subsidies disrupt the free market and prop up bad technology. We are too far in debt to continue spending money we don’t have.

No. The government should not provide direct subsidies, but should instead use market-based policies like the creation and imposition of carbon markets to allow firms to do what they do best: constrained optimization.

No, instead we should nationalize and fund renewable energy companies whilst promoting rewilding efforts in forestry.

Yes, but the government giving tax credits and subsidies to any industry should be on a short-term basis, with continued renewal of funding being contingent on independent evaluations showing the effectiveness of the technology.

No, but provide subsidies and incentives to renewable energy companies while investing in reforestation.

Yes, but only small subsidies and only when such methods are proven to be effective, developed, and unique to that specific company.

Yes, similar to wind power subsidies question, subsidies should have targeted benchmarks such a making CCT cheaper to manufacture & purchase, and reducing carbon emissions.

No, for the sake of freedom, capitalism, weak central government, federalism, and checks and balances, it should be for the companies to decide

yes but make new fraud laws for companies abusing the system with carbon capture fossil fuel schemes

Yes, government subsidies for companies developing carbon capture technologies are a common and debated policy tool, with arguments for and against them, and the US government has already implemented such policies.
Arguments for Subsidies:
Incentivizing Innovation and Deployment:
Subsidies can encourage private investment in carbon capture technologies, which are often expensive and require significant upfront investment.
Addressing Market Failures:
Carbon capture technologies may not be economically viable without government support, as the benefits of reduced emissions are often not fully…  Read more captured by the companies developing them.
Meeting Climate Goals:
Carbon capture technologies are seen as crucial for achieving ambitious climate targets, and government support can help accelerate their development and deployment.
Creating a Path to Net-Zero Emissions:
Subsidies can help create a pathway for industries to reduce their carbon emissions, potentially leading to a net-zero future.
Examples of US Policies:
The US government has provided financial support for carbon capture projects, including the section 45Q tax credit, which incentivizes companies to capture and store CO2.
Arguments Against Subsidies:
Potential for Subsidizing Fossil Fuels:
Some argue that carbon capture technologies can be used to prolong the life of fossil fuel industries, rather than transitioning to renewable energy sources.
High Costs and Uncertainties:
Carbon capture technologies are still relatively expensive and face significant technical challenges, and there is uncertainty about their long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.
Focus on Mitigation rather than Prevention:
Critics argue that government resources should be directed towards preventing emissions rather than capturing them after they are released.
Potential for Waste and Misallocation of Funds:
There is a concern that government subsidies could be used to support inefficient or ineffective projects, leading to a waste of taxpayer money.
Need

Yes, and provide incentives for the development of renewable energy, reforestation and conservation, energy efficiency, sustainable agriculture, and cap-and-trade systems

No, the government should only invest in companies if the government is getting a share of the company in return.

It should be paired with efforts to increase plant-cycling, so there's equal effort being put in both naturally and technologically

yes, and prioritize nuclear energy and reforestation efforts, to repair the environment, capture more carbon and ensure sustainablity of the forestry industry for future job opprtunities.

Yes but we really don't need all of our money going towards something so advanced this early. I think the government and scientists are trying so hard to shoot us into the future that its ruining peoples lives every day by spending the tax payers money on some machine that we wont see for another 20 to 30 years.

Encourage the citizens to plant trees, make more parks, and provide subsidies to renewable energy companies instead.

No, rely on voluntary community efforts and private companies to plant more trees and specialize in waste solutions.

No, a mix of the options; tax carbon emissions instead, provide subsides to renewable companies instead, and the government should invest in planting more trees to capture carbon instead.

There are more ways to address carbon emissions such as, for jobs that don’t require onsite attendance to be remote workers. This saves fuel on commutes as well as the emissions of thousands of vehicles at 7-9am and 4-6pm everyday multiplied over a years time the emissions should see a drastic reduction.

The government should invest in clean energy, reforestation, nuclear energy, alternative fuels, and carbon elimination technologies

Yes, and increase spending for renewable energy, while also providing subsidies to renewable energy companies

Capture alone is not enough. The subsidies should be given to those who actually reduce, not just track

Yes, but they should be further incentivized with more money only AFTER these technologies are shown to work to prevent cash grabs with no return

No, because once you put it in the ground effects some of the natural resources in our environment like plants and gardens and it will one day resurface.

Yes, carbon taxes should be set at the cost to recapture, and the government should directly purchase recapture credits on the open market using that carbon tax revenue.

ARPA-E should see increased funding and should be able to provide help the DOE grant favorable loans for open sourced or shortened patent lengths.

Subsidies should be provided to directly combat climate change instead of being diverted to carbon capture which is often used by corporations for green washing and is much less effective than traditional climate action.

No, companies should be taxed for their carbon emissions to incentivize them to invest in carbon capture technologies and other ways of reducing pollution

The government should provide more research grants before subsidizing companies because the technology isn't quite there yet.

No. Funds are better served going to preventative measures than to allow pollution to continue and try to figure out ways to clean it up. Just like the ozone solution.

No, the government should impose more strict regulations for companies that don't meet a certain quota for carbon capture.

Yes, but build in accountability structures to make sure that there is only subsidy if and only if there are actually usable products or a provable pathway towards it accelerated by subsidies

Adoption of clean renewable energy should be decided by the organization and through community action.

How about we just plant more trees, and if we can use the carbon capture technologies to route it to trees so they can produce oxygen

I think the Government should only spend money on environmental issues for renewable energy sources.

Reforestation is important for wildlife inhabitants only, which is still a good thing and be promoted. Renewable energy companies however, I would not rely upon. If it isn't nuclear energy, it isn't worth the money or the effort. I absolutely agree with a tax on carbon emissions as a incentive to push corps into a much more safer energy alternative such as nulcear energy.

I don't think the government should give them money, but I do agree with what they are doing, I just think the government is spending quite a lot.

Yes, and increase spending on nuclear power at the expense of all other power sources besides hydropower and solar power

No, but not to say that it shouldn't be done. If it's so great, woke companies will buy it and they'll make their money that way.

Tax carbon emissions, return that money to the citizens as a Dividend; subsidize renewables and reforestation.

No, use other methods of carbon capturing, like planting trees and providing subsidies to renewable energy companies instead

Tax carbon emissions and redistribute national spending towards environmental efforts (not the military).

No, remove existing regulations that limit or restrict enhancements to existing carbon emissions sources and release any restricted patents for the same

The government issues a set amount of permits to companies that comprise a cap on allowed emissions that reduces each year, typically carbon dioxide. Companies that surpass the cap are taxed, while companies that cut their emissions may sell or trade unused credits. No accumulation of credits however!

I am skeptical about this, although it is underground in a controlled and suitable area, is there enough research done? Is it truly better?

No, but create a system that would continuously increase a CO2equivalent-added tax system which would allow credits for carbon capture.

Until we decide to devote resources to Nuclear fossil fuels are the best option. As a nature enthusiasts I do want some regenerative farming and reforestation effort, however I don’t think it should only be overseen by the government because odds are it will only hinder small farmers and reforestation efforts not the actual culprit of those that are damaging those environments.

No but let private or public companies make the technologies but make sure that safer practices are being followed and implemented

trees and carbon capture technologies aren't the way to go. Plankton produce most of the world's oxygen, not trees.

No, tax carbon emissions instead and the government should invest in planting more trees to capture carbon

No, these are much too expensive, subsidize renewable energy, stop subsidizing fossil fuels, and tax carbon instead.

Yes, but also increase spending for renewable energy and reforestation, and tax carbon emissions as well.

I think they should do this but currerntly not a issue, and dont want our taxes to be raised beacuse of our nations economy at the moment, if it was okay then I prolly would say yes as long as it wouldnt be inpacting taxes that muh

I do not believe that carbon capture technology is efficient enough to be viable-the money should instead go to trees, renewable energy, and public transport.

Only if it means giving more back to nature. Animals NEED spaces to live their lives too. Mother Earth isn't only about man

No. Carbon capture tech. is effective and interesting on a small scale, but it will not come online in time to address climate collapse. The funds are better used elsewhere as most companies who are investing in the technology are the same oil companies which knowingly created the problem in the first place - they do not deserve further subsidies.

Yes, in the short-term, but the goal should be for these companies to do this because it's the right thing to do, not because they get money from the fed.

It depends on the situation with the economy at that time, its not important enough to me to be a priority

No, carbon capture technologies will never be as effective as a permanent switch to sustainable energy sources.

No, the government should invest in planting and harvesting forests in a 15-25 year growth/harvest cycle with the lumber being used to build government/military housing/buildings.

Yes, for R&D costs and if the publically-funded technology then becomes public domain, but not for private company operating costs.

With the transparency of all information, we need the citizens to be aware of all results of all research and the positives and negatives on our communities.

Yes, but the government should give minimal funding to maintain economic stability, while simultaneously allowing regulated innovation

No, They should not incentivize destructive behavior. They should focus or solving the causes of climate change.

No, the government should conduct research themselves rather than relying on private cooperations to do the right thing.

No, private entities should research without tax dollars, then when technology is found the government can implement it then.

Yes, but provided it does not take away any resources from more proven technology like renewable power

No, unless our federal or state-level government can afford it and it is directed to a specific development project(s) that can be proven to be effective

Yes, with a decreasing subsidy regime over time, and with subsidies tied not simply to capturing but also to lifecycle management and disposal once captured.

Well, since I am unsure as to what this technology is, I will abstain from commenting on the question.

Yes. But we should be more focused on not putting the carbon in the air in the first place and changing our unsustainable lifestyles

Carbon capture disincentivizes organizations and people from taking environmentally-beneficial actions.

No, but they should be eligible for R&D grants contingent on the US Government getting equity on any patents granted

We have many ways we create power in this country - so each method would capture and store CO2 in different ways. This question needs to be more specific.
That's a big problem I have with many college students who harp about climate change - they haven't done their homework so they talk in generalties. A lot of these folks - don't even know what is too much or the right amount of CO2.

The best way for government to combat climate change would be to lower taxes and end artificial barriers to entry that protect favored firms and stifle innovation. Doing so would allow the market to find solutions.

The best way to combat climate change is by reducing taxes and artificial barriers to entry so that incentives for innovation allow the market to provide solutions,

No, carbon capture is too expensive and impractical. The government should tax carbon emissions instead

No, carbon capture is a relatively ineffectual technology. We should support hydroelectric and nuclear energy instead

Government should lower taxes and eliminate artificial barriers to entry for all firms large and small, allowing market incentives for innovation to spur development of technologies.

Regenerative farming should be substitutes, and it would capture more carbon than other technologies.

No, the government should fund their own research and penalize companies that don't follow best practice

I want to say no but with limited choices, consumer opinion is almost moot. Without intervention, companies have no reason to change because customers have virtually no voice.

No, most carbon capture tech is mainly a means of giving companies an out on their emissions levels and distract from actual solutions such as degrowth and ending capitalism.