3 ms·

There isn't some intrinsic moral sin to burning carbon. There are just practical problems with having too much in the atmosphere. If you can remove carbon, espe

by tlb 7y ago

There isn't some intrinsic moral sin to burning carbon. There are just practical problems with having too much in the atmosphere. If you can remove carbon, especially if you can also convert it back into fuel, that solves the problem. (Carbon isn't the only emission from burning coal -- it contains sulfur and thorium too. But these can also be mitigated with some expense. And if you're converting CO2 directly to fuel, there's no increase in pollution at all.)

itcrowd 7y ago
I would argue there is a moral "sin" in releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, because (in your words) it leads to "practical problems", i.e. anthropogenic climate change. If you can remove the carbon again, then it is still a "sin" unless you pay to have your share removed. If it can then be converted to fuel again that is an added bonus. Of course, this whole process needs to occur at a massive scale because we are releasing so much carbon dioxide and want to remove more than we are currently emitting. (P.s. I don't like the word "sin" in this context because of the theological connotation it implies, but I hope the message is clear)
maximente 7y ago
no, this is too simplistic. extracting carbon from the ground is neither free nor reversable so this analogy isn't appropriate here. even if one could turn it back into whatever it's original form was (impossible to do without additional energy due to thermodyamics/entropy), the site of extraction is way worse for the wear.
- harryh 7y ago
  No one cares about the "worse for the wear" problems of digging holes in the ground in Saudi Arabia. The whole problem is the CO2 that ends up in our air on the other end of the process.
  - maximente 7y ago
    > digging holes in the ground in Saudi Arabia are you aware of fracking and tar sands and their environmental impacts? you cannot possibly trivialize those as "digging holes in the ground".
    - harryh 7y ago
      Meh. In the grand scheme of things, those environmental impacts are nothing compared to the problems of climate change.
- beambot 7y ago
  Extracting carbon from ground isn't the only option: https://www.prometheusfuels.com/ https://www.prometheusfuels.com/

by tlb 7y ago

itcrowd 7y ago

I would argue there is a moral "sin" in releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, because (in your words) it leads to "practical problems", i.e. anthropogenic climate change. If you can remove the carbon again, then it is still a "sin" unless you pay to have your share removed. If it can then be converted to fuel again that is an added bonus. Of course, this whole process needs to occur at a massive scale because we are releasing so much carbon dioxide and want to remove more than we are currently emitting. (P.s. I don't like the word "sin" in this context because of the theological connotation it implies, but I hope the message is clear)

maximente 7y ago

no, this is too simplistic. extracting carbon from the ground is neither free nor reversable so this analogy isn't appropriate here. even if one could turn it back into whatever it's original form was (impossible to do without additional energy due to thermodyamics/entropy), the site of extraction is way worse for the wear.

harryh 7y ago
No one cares about the "worse for the wear" problems of digging holes in the ground in Saudi Arabia. The whole problem is the CO2 that ends up in our air on the other end of the process.
- maximente 7y ago
  > digging holes in the ground in Saudi Arabia are you aware of fracking and tar sands and their environmental impacts? you cannot possibly trivialize those as "digging holes in the ground".
  - harryh 7y ago
    Meh. In the grand scheme of things, those environmental impacts are nothing compared to the problems of climate change.
beambot 7y ago
Extracting carbon from ground isn't the only option: https://www.prometheusfuels.com/ https://www.prometheusfuels.com/