2 ms·
> We need to first stop adding more CO2 to the sky. We need to do both. Every single comment on an article that talks about one has commenters like you arguin
by scrollaway 5y ago
> We need to first stop adding more CO2 to the sky.
We need to do both.
Every single comment on an article that talks about one has commenters like you arguing "no but check this out, doing the other is so much easier/better/whatever".
We. Need. Both.
- y4mi 5y agoWe could use both, but only one option is viable with current technology. Existing carbon capture should not be subsidized because it's pointless. Sponsoring research into carbon capture would be good, but existing methods don't achieve anything wrt the climate crises.
- realusername 5y agoThat's because carbone capture has a lack of funding, I'd call most of those schemes R&D at best. That's not an indication if it will work or not.
- jillesvangurp 5y agoSure, we need to spend in proportion to the effectiveness of the spending on this. So, $ per tonnes not added or removed. If you can remove a giga tonne for the same money it would take to avoid adding a mega-tonne, go for it. Unfortunately that's far from the current practice of carbon capture. That line of reasoning would lead you to de-fund any form of carbon capture scheme because there is about a 3-4 orders of magnitude efficiency difference between the two. Much cheaper to prevent a million tonnes from being added than to capture a few tonnes. It just doesn't add up to meaningful results. And arguably keeping the polluters that push for this in business actually adds to the problem to a large extent than their own ability to offset their carbon.