Hoping the market will solve this problem without imposing reasons for it to do so is basically how we got here in the first place.
Humans inherently seek technological advancements. We have been extracting CO2 from the environment from our very beginnings. Cheap energy allows us to do more research and development to escape the carbon dependency. Fees could potentially incentivize the right person at the right time to develop an escape. Depending on that is as much a hope as I have for free market incentives. We're both hoping here.
What was stopping the 'free market' from utilizing that capital to further advance our understanding and capabilities? Before 'onerous fees', how many large-scale polluters were taking some of their profits and investing in researching how to reduce CO2?
Here is one example:
>Patent records reveal oil companies actively pursued research into technologies to cut carbon dioxide emissions that cause climate change from the 1960s – including early versions of the batteries now deployed to power electric cars such as the Tesla.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/20/oil-company...
And ExxonMobil funded a disinformation campaigned aimed at discrediting scientists and blocking government efforts to fight climate change for more than 50 years, before publicly disavowing climate denial in 2008.
Another quote that ages well:
We in the petroleum industry are convinced that by the time a practical electric car can be mass produced and marketed, it will not enjoy any meaningful advantage from an air pollution standpoint,” he told Congress. “Emissions from internal-combustion engines will have long since been controlled.”
I don’t think that we should trust companies to act against their best interest just because “capitalism” is a magic word.
Why didn’t they spend more profits on research? Why did they lobby against pollution reduction if they’re so advanced? Why did they invent emission reduction technology in 1960, but in 2023 we have a massive pollution problem? The last 60 years could be a thesis to prove your entire premise as flawed. This is proof that they can’t be trusted with their profits, nor their research results.
> Why did they lobby against pollution reduction
For the same reasons I mentioned previously. Arbitrary fees and regulations can stifle the natural advancement. The patent in this case shows that they were working on reducing CO2 emissions which would benefit them in the long run as ICE engines would be cleaner. As such, they would be better competition to future electric competitors. Hence, more oil being purchased for their bottom line.
If they spend money and time lobbying and paying fees, that is money that is not spent on productive activities. Furthermore, it costs consumers more to purchase their product. This cost to consumers restricts their ability to invest in themselves and their future. Little Johnny wants to go to school to study clean nuclear fusion? Too bad, Ma & Pa have been paying more for goods and services for 18 years. Little Johnny will have to flip burgers instead.
The free market might over time get us cleaner engines when interests align but in all honestly the biggest factor driving cleaner engines has always been regulation and the next logical step for that regulation is to move towards forbidding the manufacture of new gas powered consumer vehicles which we can likely accomplish by the 2030s with regulation.
If too much money is spent lobbying we could very well make the productive part of that equation where money changes hands illegal, watch it become vastly less effective, and watch companies investment in same spin down quickly.
One scientist learned that smog was a result of automobile emissions as early as 1948 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arie_Jan_Haagen-Smit). That was 56 years after automobiles were first produced. Shortly thereafter, the Federal government started tackling the issue in 1955 (https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/evolution-clean-a...). Why would companies invest in cleaner emissions if the government was going to make mandates that would throw a wrench in their investments? It has been better for them to wait and see what they have to do. They were never given the chance to self regulate.
60 years is 'never given the chance'?
Companies have and will kill thousands of people to have slightly more money.
This seems quite backwards. If there is no incentive or motivating market stimulus, then there is no reason for any company to invest it research anything outside of what makes them the most money. We already know that these companies will not spend capital in those ways, because they already did not do so in the time periods before the associated taxes and fees existed. And to do so without be dereliction of what their shareholders expected and wanted them to do.
Is the depletion of oil and gas reserves not enough incentive? They will not last forever. In the grand scheme of things it is a small amount of time before we have to convert to nuclear, solar, hydro, and wind or start burning trees en masse again. As the resources are depleted, the price will go up due to limited supply. That price increase will spur R&D.
No, because the problems that face a commons do not create an incentive for the individual. You need to learn this concept:
This is not a valid or reliable mechanism for correcting misaligned incentives. It may occur by happenstance but is not guaranteed to happen prior to significant damage to the commons. The point of a carbon tax is to create a direct mechanism that corrects incentives in the presence of market failure. I would suggest this article: