Worst then that, it is an excuse to continue or increase emissions and distract people from real solutions. We need to reduce emissions first. It might be valuable someday once the low hanging fruit has been dealt with.
this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2024
37 points (100.0% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5397 readers
201 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Its a waste of valuable resources that could be used on known, more efficient ways of reducing emissions. Carbon capture isn't here to save us, it is here to save oil and gas
It's not a single bullet solution. There is no single bullet solution.
It is one bullet, in a hail of bullets fired at the problem. They'll all be needed.
Use coal to pull carbon from the air. Makes total sense! /s
But, it’s “clean coal!!!” /s
tl;dr waste of money
It will be necessary once we've done all the much more effective and cheaper stuff. For now, it's important to make it better for when we need to focus on it. That said, anything more than academic at this point is probably designed to allow emitters to keep emitting longer.
If its viable enough and could be stop/started quickly enough I could see it as a dump for negative cost electricity.
It's a big fuckin' mystery.
I would say its a yes and. Yes it costs a lot of money and it's not as efficient as trees long term. But Trees + these machines + no longer burning and releasing CO2 at the current rate + land rewilding = a chance at survival.