3 ms·
It's even worse than zero net effect, it's negative, owed to all the auxiliary inefficiencies. Add to that methane slip and it's infeasible by a long shot. The
by diarrhea 5y ago
It's even worse than zero net effect, it's negative, owed to all the auxiliary inefficiencies. Add to that methane slip and it's infeasible by a long shot.
The solution can never be to remedy surface-level GHG. The sources need to remain buried and replaced by true renewables. Anything else is just an afterthought, patching what's already too little too late. Almost all fossil-based material that made it to the surface will end up contributing to GHG.
- CodeGlitch 5y agoDo not forget market forces: there would be a strong incentive to improve upon the CO2 scrubbing technology, which can then be used in the tech to permanently remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
- freemint 5y agoDo not forget command economies: there can be even stronger incentives in those.