Point of emission capture is at least technologically feasible.
But even more like how some organizations (like PurpleAir, maybe thats the only one though?) will get you connected with the hardware necessary to be a part of their air quality monitoring network.
Except this is a way more interesting idea for a lot of reasons.
The carbon goes down a hole in the ground, somewhere with the right geology. You can think of it as a gas well run in reverse.
With a meagre Carbon Tax of $15/tonne, coal costs double in the US.
There's nothing that can be done to fix coal power apart from just shutting it all down.
If it is not economically feasible to run a coal plant if they do not externalize the pollution cost, how is that my problem? And if the demand justifies it, the cost for coal-generated electricity will go up.
It's a matter of priorities and resource allocation.
Why do we allow coal operators to enrich themselves at the cost of everyone else?
"Officer, these men are stealing my lawn, a few blades of grass a day as they walk by!" This doesn't engender a threat response until there's visible damage, and even then the solution is likely to involve signs and warnings, since the responsibility for total damage is so widely distributed. We need a fence around the climate lawn, and we can't leave the gate open for some people and not others, if you catch my drift.
We're beginning to see global acknowledgment of the problems and gradual progress towards reducing emissions. Once technology can accurately measure the cost of the negative externalities, they can be priced in. If the cost is on an exponential trend, where each ton of co2 is now seen to cost the operator an additional .0000001 cents, but 100 years later might cost millions, with regards to preventable damage, markets currently are accurately pricing in the costs. They're just not equipped to assess global climate and long term planning as relevant. That has to come from legislating sane and scientific and fair rules.
There's nothing inherently wrong with burning coal if there's a globally recognized system of accountability. Since there's not likely to ever be such a hegemony, you get what we have now - slow, frustratingly bureaucratic incremental progress, and therefore the need for mitigation as well as sustainable energy tech.
Well it's your problem because they currently do externalize the pollution cost, and the status quo is difficult to overcome.
> Why do we allow coal operators to enrich themselves at the cost of everyone else?
Great question, but the rough answer is that a lot of people don't believe (or don't want to believe) that the cost to everyone else is meaningful.
Of course, that caused the prices of electricity for households to jump up. [2]
[0] https://www.euractiv.com/section/emissions-trading-scheme/ne...
[1] https://www.dw.com/en/germany-coal-tops-wind-as-primary-elec...
[2] https://www.dw.com/en/europeans-brace-for-hard-winter-as-ene...
[1] https://carbontracker.org/cop26-a-chance-to-reset-and-elimin...