3 ms·

> I think this is something a lot of people miss and I'm not sure why sequestration as a whole is a controversial subject One of the major reasons it's controv

by hannob 6y ago

> I think this is something a lot of people miss and I'm not sure why sequestration as a whole is a controversial subject One of the major reasons it's controversial is that it has been used as a distraction and a false promise. I.e. arguments of the form "we can continue to burn fossil fuels, because some magic future CCS technology will fix everything" are very common.

godelski 6y ago
I mean to be honest, it isn't burning fossil fuels that's the (CO2eq) problem. It is the emissions they leave. The problem is emissions, not where we get the emissions from (argument restricted to climate). This does seem to be a missed point by many. The problems is emissions, not source. The reason we talk about sources is because they correlate to emissions.
- Valgrim 6y ago
  I don't get your point. What do you mean? How can the problem be CO2 emissions but not the source of those emissions? Of course if we want to solve the CO2 emission problem we have to reduce it at it's source?
  - godelski 6y ago
    > How can the problem be CO2 emissions but not the source of those emissions? Because the problem is emissions, not who creates those emissions. What I'm saying is that if coal does so much sequestration that it in effect has negative emissions, this is actually better than solar which has a little emissions. This is because we care about emissions. I'll make an analogy. Let's say we have two companies that output poison in their process. Company A produces 10000 units and company B produces 5 units. Company A shifts and now produces -10 units of poison and company B doesn't change. Initially company B is better but after the change company A is better because really all we care is about the poison being produced and not actually what the companies do. Because at the end of the day, our goal is less poison. That's the number that matters.

by hannob 6y ago

godelski 6y ago

I mean to be honest, it isn't burning fossil fuels that's the (CO2eq) problem. It is the emissions they leave. The problem is emissions, not where we get the emissions from (argument restricted to climate). This does seem to be a missed point by many. The problems is emissions, not source. The reason we talk about sources is because they correlate to emissions.

Valgrim 6y ago
I don't get your point. What do you mean? How can the problem be CO2 emissions but not the source of those emissions? Of course if we want to solve the CO2 emission problem we have to reduce it at it's source?
- godelski 6y ago
  > How can the problem be CO2 emissions but not the source of those emissions? Because the problem is emissions, not who creates those emissions. What I'm saying is that if coal does so much sequestration that it in effect has negative emissions, this is actually better than solar which has a little emissions. This is because we care about emissions. I'll make an analogy. Let's say we have two companies that output poison in their process. Company A produces 10000 units and company B produces 5 units. Company A shifts and now produces -10 units of poison and company B doesn't change. Initially company B is better but after the change company A is better because really all we care is about the poison being produced and not actually what the companies do. Because at the end of the day, our goal is less poison. That's the number that matters.