"not putting carbon into the atmosphere" != "removing carbon from the atmosphere"
Comparing the "cost" of not putting carbon into the atmosphere with the cost of taking it out is incredibly misleading and irresponsible and it leads to the kind of logic of "I was totally about to burn this entire forest down but instead I decided not to, look at how much emissions I've saved!".
Putting that trap aside, according to a calculator I found via Google[1], if this were made mandatory for all passengers then it seems like it would increase the one-way cost of JFK -> LHR by about $10 which seems pretty reasonable. I imagine short-haul flights might become more expensive, but that might encourage more people to consider other means of transport.
Comparing the "cost" of not putting carbon into the atmosphere with the cost of taking it out is incredibly misleading and irresponsible and it leads to the kind of logic of "I was totally about to burn this entire forest down but instead I decided not to, look at how much emissions I've saved!".
Putting that trap aside, according to a calculator I found via Google[1], if this were made mandatory for all passengers then it seems like it would increase the one-way cost of JFK -> LHR by about $10 which seems pretty reasonable. I imagine short-haul flights might become more expensive, but that might encourage more people to consider other means of transport.
[1]: https://co2.myclimate.org/en/portfolios?calculation_id=65175...