4 ms·

There are far more problems with fossil fuel than just destabilising the climate. It also acidifies the oceans, it kills by air poisoning and just is generally

There are far more problems with fossil fuel than just destabilising the climate. It also acidifies the oceans, it kills by air poisoning and just is generally bad and also nonrenewable. We do need a paradigm shift in the way we utilise the earth’s resources. That is why CCS gets a bad rap, it’s like the alcoholic parent saying they can continue drinking because there’s this new hangover drug and also a great skin remedy for your bruises. I actually really support all the climate mitigation strategies and CCS is definitely an important one, but together with a strict ban on new coal and oil projects. Natural gas seems an OK tradeoff for now if each new plant is tied directly to the shuttering of a coal or oil one.

jeeeb 5y ago
> It also acidifies the oceans, it kills by air poisoning and just is generally bad and also nonrenewable. Isn’t ocean acidification caused by increased amounts of dissolved CO2 in the oceans though? If your capturing CO2 (and larger particles as a side effect), it would seem to address both concerns. CCS is obviously a stop gap but it seems like it could potentially be a very effective and politically realistic stop gap, if it can be made work at scale.
- manicdee 5y ago
  CCS is not a stopgap it is stage dressing for an illusionist. It’s a sham, a smoke and mirrors trick, a misdirection. It is far cheaper to simply pay a fossil fuel plant to stop operating than to provide meaningful levels of emissions reduction via CCS. There is a cheaper option which is to facilitate the establishment of commercial renewables programs which will compete the fossil fuel burners out of the market.