2 ms·
This comment makes me think you may reading me differently than I intend, though I'm not sure which bit you're responding to. Perhaps my use of the word "operat
by abathur 5y ago
This comment makes me think you may reading me differently than I intend, though I'm not sure which bit you're responding to. Perhaps my use of the word "operators"?
In any case, I do not intend to suggest any subsidy to fossil fuel producers, here. When I say operators, I mean the operators of capture operations. The only context in which I intentionally point to producers is around the possibility that they might also become capture operators if it was profitable.
- Dylan16807 5y agoYou quoted someone talking about not-pumping oil as part of your line about subsidies. That's on the production side.
- abathur 5y agoYes. @knodi123 is joking about fraud. I am talking about fraud.
- Dylan16807 5y agoAnd I'm saying that kind of fraud shouldn't be a worry, because there shouldn't be any money at all for reducing/preventing production.
- jaggederest 5y agoIt's easy to provide proof of capture. 2266 kilo one-cubic-meter cubes of carbon, by the billions. Preferably stacked into interesting and eye-pleasing shapes. Casually building pyramids out of the ~57 cubic kilometers of carbon blocks would be pretty neat. three 4 kilometer tall square based pyramids would do it. They would also be the largest structures ever built by humanity by an order of magnitude.