This is exciting and is consistent with me hiding and not writing anything. If Alberta had a clue, then they would get in on this. Determining the cost of carbon without any physics requires the use of selected stories and data. They have to use pre-2016 global temperatures and the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere charts.
If they use a speck of physics, then the cost is zero, which is politically unacceptable. The extreme values, might give a cost of $100 per breath. Taken as the cost of a ton of carbon dioxide, they must find an acceptable value to the people that pay them.
I think they will pick a value in advance, like $100 per ton, and then back-calculate the curves required. Then they will pick a section of the global temperatures that matches this. I really think they don't have to show any math, since the audience won't understand.
Without physics, there is no constraint on what they can do. As long as I don't put in my 2 cents on the value (and hide), I think I can safely ride this out. I'll just say "Yep, that's a great value.". Everybody will be happy.
So, whatever they pick, it's fine with me.