this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2023
128 points (97.8% liked)

World News

39023 readers
3069 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The article puts it up as a question about whether this practice is worthwhile since the only logical solution to climate change is to de-carbonize. Personally I think that question isn't very nuanced, certainly de-carbonizing 100'a of tons from the atmosphere from just this one plant is a small net positive. Can't let it be an excuse to keep rolling coal in your F750'a but I'm still in favor of sucking as much carbon out of the air as we can.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is different than the carbon sequestration that fossil fuel companies pushed so that they could get billions of government dollars. This is the same company that built the direct air capture plant in Iceland. Carbon removable from the air will be necessary to bring us back to pre industrial levels and needs to be researched. As long as it is using green energy and requires little maintenance like it is in Iceland, it is carbon negative.

[–] Quatity_Control@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To prevent exceeding the 1.5 celsius increase, we need to triple the current uptake of renewables. I can extinguish a candle and say its carbon negative, however it's not really going to help. We can look at other carbon reducing technology after the immediate requirement for renewable installations. I'm all for that, but right now, it's just taking money time and resources away from renewables when we can't afford any delay.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It's not taking anything away from renewables. The renewable investment market is blowing the fuck up.

There's investment money all over the place any sort of renewable/sustainable/green projects. There is far more investment interest than there are companies ready to deliver on any sort of product, and we absolutely will need 2nd+ gen carbon capture.

There is no way to paint this as a bad thing.

[–] Quatity_Control@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'd agree with you if we were already producing enough renewables. Since we need to triple the current renewable market just to hit 1.5, I don't agree with resources going elsewhere until we are on track there.

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

There is vastly more funding going to renewables

[–] Quatity_Control@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Claidheamh@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago

Take it from the fossil fuel subsidies.