3 ms·
Avoiding emissions would certainly be better. It is supremely inefficient to dig up and burn fuel now then capture it and bury it later. But current global pla
by graeme 6y ago
Avoiding emissions would certainly be better. It is supremely inefficient to dig up and burn fuel now then capture it and bury it later.
But current global plan is to keep doing the first part, so we’ll have to undo it. We actually already likely have too much CO2 in the atmosphere. Even if we went to zero emissions today the climate would keep warming from the accumulated CO2 and feedback effects. Takes some years for those to work through the system.
- inglor_cz 6y agoWell, anyone can decide to run potential future capture plants, cleaning up after others (that includes the previous generations), while everyone would have to agree to reduce emissions. What looks inefficient as far as pure physics goes, might be very efficient politically. Build some solar power plants in the Sahara, use the energy to sequester carbon, pay poor countries like Niger some money for that, reduce the current migration stream to Europe by creating local green jobs - that does not sound too bad.