3 ms·

Carbon removal will eventually be necessary to reach carbon neutrality. We're very very far from the point where it's more economical to invest in carbon remova

• chii 5y ago
  > We're very very far from the point where it's more economical to invest in carbon removal than to lower emissions. depends on what you mean by lower emissions. Transitioning to more renewable sources is certainly a good way to invest resources, but it's not mutually exclusive to also consider carbon capture. What is _not_ possible is for people to reduce their consumption. I, and many others, will not be willingly sacrificing the high quality of life that is the result of using a lot of energy. If people expect that climate change is to be solved by having everyone reduce their consumption, then that train of thought is doomed to fail.
  • adrianN 5y ago
    By "lower emissions" I mean investing money into energy sources that don't emit CO2, into better insulation for houses, into low carbon modes of transport. This will naturally lead to less energy use, because thermal power plants are not very efficient, burning oil for heat is not very efficient (compared to a heat pump), and burning oil to move a car is not very efficient (compared to a BEV, or a train). Doing something about emissions from agriculture is a bit more difficult. Perhaps that's an area where we'll need carbon capture to reach neutrality. I do not mean moving back to a pre-industrial lifestyle.