That the polluter pays is a fine idea. It does, however, require identifying who is the polluter:

Fossil fuel companies should be forced to “take back” the carbon dioxide emitted from their products, handing them direct responsibility for cleaning up the climate, a group of scientists has argued.

The principle that the producer of pollution should pay for its clean-up is established around the world, but has never been applied to the climate crisis.

The polluter here is the user of the fossil fuels, not the company. So, therefore, it should be the user of the fossil fuels dealing with, paying for, the pollution, not the company. QED.

In more detail, this is an attempt to make the company responsible for the costs of Scope 3 emissions. Scope 1 is what happens in the supply chain. Scope 2 in the production process. Scope 3 what users then use the product to do.

The claim being made here is that my driving down the road in a petrol car - as I do at times - is emissions by BP, or Shell, so therefore BP or Shell should be paying for those emissions. Which is obviously silly, for it is me making those emissions by driving down the road in my petrol car.

As ever, we can examine the logic of an argument by inverting it. Think of carbon credits. If it is the use of the product which is to be taxed, credited, then this means that Tesla is due all the carbon credits for the non-use of petrol by people who drive milk-floats. That’s insane. So, therefore so too is the idea of BP, or Shell, paying for emissions in use of fossil fuels.

We, us out here, are the users of fossil fuels. We are therefore the producers of the emissions.

Of course, opinions differ on the size, immediacy and even importance of carbon dioxide emissions. But it might be worth keeping the discussions of what to do next well away from any descent into true idiocy.