4 ms·

Carbon sequestration seems like the (political) winner because it's much easier to convince people to spend money on something than it is to take their money fo

Carbon sequestration seems like the (political) winner because it's much easier to convince people to spend money on something than it is to take their money for doing something (in a democratic society at least). Edit: Of course not emitting the carbon is better and more efficient but from a practical "affecting change ASAP" perspective sequestration seems like an easier pill for society to swallow. That should go without saying but I forgot that weekends here are basically Reddit and those kinds of things cannot be considered obvious.

elbasti 7y ago
Unfortunately we need to do both. It's much "cheaper" (in money and thermodynamics) to release carbon than to capture it, so we need to stop pumping it into the atmosphere in order for it to make any sense whatsoever to spend money removing it.
hannob 7y ago
Please learn some basic facts. The idea that carbon sequestation is an alternative to reducing emissions needs to die as quickly as possible. It's rooted in fantasy, not in facts. All climate scenarios from the IPCC that don't end up in a huge catastrophy rely on rapid emission reductions. Most also rely on carbon sequestation for negative emissions in the future (which many think is too optimistic, because it needs yet to be shown that the technology can be scaled up enough). There is no scenario of averting catastrophic heating with carbon sequestation alone.
cheerlessbog 7y ago
> it's much easier to convince people to spend money on something than it is to take their money for doing something If that was the case we could have a strong carbon tax, which would actually be a very good idea, probably the most economically efficient of all. But they don't. People like to keep their money even if that means much less money for them in the long run because we don't have an economy in the sense we are used to.

elbasti 7y ago

Unfortunately we need to do both. It's much "cheaper" (in money and thermodynamics) to release carbon than to capture it, so we need to stop pumping it into the atmosphere in order for it to make any sense whatsoever to spend money removing it.

hannob 7y ago

Please learn some basic facts. The idea that carbon sequestation is an alternative to reducing emissions needs to die as quickly as possible. It's rooted in fantasy, not in facts. All climate scenarios from the IPCC that don't end up in a huge catastrophy rely on rapid emission reductions. Most also rely on carbon sequestation for negative emissions in the future (which many think is too optimistic, because it needs yet to be shown that the technology can be scaled up enough). There is no scenario of averting catastrophic heating with carbon sequestation alone.

cheerlessbog 7y ago

> it's much easier to convince people to spend money on something than it is to take their money for doing something If that was the case we could have a strong carbon tax, which would actually be a very good idea, probably the most economically efficient of all. But they don't. People like to keep their money even if that means much less money for them in the long run because we don't have an economy in the sense we are used to.