5 ms·

The problem is if they create the illusion of not destroying the world while continuing to do so. Which is really a key issue in the CCS debate.

• daxfohl 7y ago
  That's a big "if" though. "If" our infrastructure is good enough that oil+CCS is more efficient and no more destructive than alt energy methods, then is there still a need for alt energy?
  • daxfohl 7y ago
    That's a stretch. There's still pipelines, oil spills, chemical processing, etc to deal with even beyond the CO2 cost. Oil isn't going to be the least env destructive option for quite some time. Plus there's the political cost. Oil is in the ground. So wars are fought over it and rich nations exploit poor nations to their own advantage without considering the human toll. If alt energy makes nations more self-sufficient then that can only be a good thing.
  • kadoban 7y ago
    Yes. Oil will continue to be harder to get over time, and makes some nations dependent on other nations they'd rather not be. Wind isn't going anywhere, the sun isn't going anywhere.
  • hannob 7y ago
    > That's a big "if" though. No, that's pretty much how the CCS debate has been going. Norway announced a big project to cleanup a gas plant with CCS used for an oil refinery. The plant was built, but without CCS. When Germany built its last wave of new coal power plants a common argument was that "the CO2 emissions are no big problem, we'll add CCS later". Which never happened. The promise of CCS as an excuse for continued fossil fuel use without actually buildling it is a recurring theme in the debate.
    • imtringued 7y ago
      I always wonder how one could enforce CCS via forestation. How can you be sure that the forest won't be cut down and never replanted? After all the idea behind capture certificates is to buy and forget.
      • FooHentai 7y ago
        This is definitely an issue with reforestation initiatives right now and (IMO) another form of green washing. You can see a lot of examples where the planting is managed forestry that will be re-harvested. As long as it wasn’t recently a forested area, then it’s still a valid long-term carbon store for as long as the re-planting never stops or the final harvest is not taken. That’s a pretty big ‘if’ though, and the commercial interest that sits atop the arrangement is not aligned with a positive outcome. You’d also have to account for the output production of the felled wood to be sure of the benefit/cost to carbon capture. If a significant portion of the logged timber survives in some manufactured form for a long time that nudges the dial in a positive direction. Also monoculture forests, characteristic of commercial interest, are a problem in terms of the multi-faceted nature of the climate change we’re attempting to halt/reverse. One of the big impacts of climate change is loss of biodiversity, but monoculture forestry does little to support nature and in many ways is akin to concreting over the area. Diverse native plantings that support wildlife and promote humus buildup is far more desirable to reclaim carbon AND provide much-needed refuge to threatened species.