3 ms·
> always been Well, not quite. If we had started back when climate change became clear mid-20th century, #3 wouldn't have been needed. But now, it is indeed th
by ehsankia 6y ago
> always been
Well, not quite. If we had started back when climate change became clear mid-20th century, #3 wouldn't have been needed. But now, it is indeed the only option, and it will be very expensive. And the more we delay, the more expensive it'll become. We are basically screwing over future generations who will have to pay our debts.
- fastball 6y agoEh, carbon capture has always been a good idea to develop. Some things just make the most sense releasing greenhouse gases and will for the foreseeable future, e.g. CH4-powered rockets or CO2 released from cement. Will never be a problem if we're capturing as much as we emit.
- imtringued 6y agoCarbon capture works at a point site. Put your machine there and you get a nice concentration of CO2. Once it's in the atmosphere you are basically just building a more efficient tree. Any machines you build will have to be as large as forests. Who is going to pay for that? By definition this would be keynesian gold digging. Pay people to do something that has very little economic benefits for the individual doing it and it's not in competition with any other private industry. It's basically an extreme example of a luxury.