this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2023
622 points (98.4% liked)

Technology

59402 readers
3300 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Cambridge study says carbon offsets are not nearly as effective as they claim to be.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bioemerl@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Well sure, the entire global warming crisis is a matter of energy. Almost every problem we have today is a matter of energy.

The problem is, at any given point in time a more productive use of energy then carbon sequestration is going to exist, because it is incredibly difficult to pull carbon out of the atmosphere and it would require a project of herculan scales to make a difference in the global climate.

Imagine it's 10 times as hard to carbon out of the atmosphere as it is to put in.

It has taken the entire world economy decades to get to the point that global warming is moving back a couple of degrees.

To offset that with sequestration you're going to need something the size of the entire global economy, and you're going to need to create that while the only possible input is through government programs and sequestration creates next to zero benefit in terms of profit for the people doing it.

It's going to be hilariously difficult, nearly impossible, and you can't wave that away with "it's an energy problem".

It's only ever going to make sense inside of coal smokestacks.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not a physics problem, is all I said

[–] bioemerl@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The need for a large amount of energy is a physics problem. You can't undo it through any amount of innovation.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

It's a money problem.