3 ms·
To me carbon removal is just a PR tool by interested parties who don’t want to reduce emissions. I haven’t seen any approach that even remotely can be scaled to
by spaetzleesser 5y ago
To me carbon removal is just a PR tool by interested parties who don’t want to reduce emissions. I haven’t seen any approach that even remotely can be scaled to a level where it would make a difference. I think it’s a distraction that’s designed to prevent meaningful action. Pretty much the same as the fast food industry sponsoring health education initiatives that tell people junk food is ok.
- corty 5y agoTo me, critics of carbon removal are engaging in their own agenda as well. Usually they advocate for the abolishment of individual transport, deindustrialisation and lower standards of living. Since those will only be had if there was no alternative, every technique that lets us have our current standard of living is criticized out of hand as non-viable. Only abstinence and discipline for us CO₂-sinners!
- unchocked 5y agoA similar argument could have been made for solar power in the 1980s - just a PR tool distracting from the only economically viable energy choices of nuclear or oil. But we have cheap and viable solar energy today because of decades of work to make it economically viable. So tarring carbon removal or any other technology that could feasibly improve or stabilize a damaged climate could be strangling future pillars of climate response.
- spaetzleesser 5y agoI am not against research. Research as much as possible. Maybe something will show up. But it should not be viewed as a short term alternative to cutting emissions. I am just worried that some industries are using carbon capture as a delay tactic. Reminds me a little if “clean coal” they pushed some years ago.