3 ms·

It should be noted that this company is backed by major fossil fuel funders and companies, even with connections to some of the dirtiest fossil fuel productions

by hannob 4y ago

It should be noted that this company is backed by major fossil fuel funders and companies, even with connections to some of the dirtiest fossil fuel productions on earth (tar sands): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_Engineering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_Engineering While I do think there is a need to develop DAC and e-fuels technologies, everything about Carbon Engineering feels like this is an effort by fossil fuel interests to give the impression of an easy solution that doesn't require too much change.

danuker 4y ago
Indeed. For as long as it costs more than fuel, only greenwashers will buy it. This is a red herring distracting you from the fact that oil is subsidized when it should be taxed.
- pif 4y ago
  > oil is subsidized when it should be taxed. Our economy is based on oil. What you are proposing is an immediate economic collapse of whatever country decides to go that way.
  - danuker 4y ago
    I am not proposing it to be immediate. I am merely asking for a commitment to gradually reduce greenhouse emissions. Thankfully the US rejoined the Paris agreement.
  - flandish 4y ago
    For sure, however… look at the direction of this logic. For fear of an economic change, one is willing to place more burden on the planet and its humans/occupants. Economic change largely means “less profit for corporations” and “more bailout for corps.” The poor are still poor just more poor-er… Which usually translates to: “harder hits for consumers” as under capitalism, the profit is protected more than the people. A good direction, imho, may be to edict (from gov) a directional change with a temporal bound, and financial hit for failing to meet that goal. So: “implement X by date or get fined and shut down.” … ignoring that most nations have allowed corporations inroads to government halls making it virtually impossible to make any real changes that will help the people. We’re screwed without drastic changes, it’s our fault, and it’s only going to get worse before it gets better.

by hannob 4y ago

danuker 4y ago

Indeed. For as long as it costs more than fuel, only greenwashers will buy it. This is a red herring distracting you from the fact that oil is subsidized when it should be taxed.

pif 4y ago
> oil is subsidized when it should be taxed. Our economy is based on oil. What you are proposing is an immediate economic collapse of whatever country decides to go that way.
- danuker 4y ago
  I am not proposing it to be immediate. I am merely asking for a commitment to gradually reduce greenhouse emissions. Thankfully the US rejoined the Paris agreement.
- flandish 4y ago
  For sure, however… look at the direction of this logic. For fear of an economic change, one is willing to place more burden on the planet and its humans/occupants. Economic change largely means “less profit for corporations” and “more bailout for corps.” The poor are still poor just more poor-er… Which usually translates to: “harder hits for consumers” as under capitalism, the profit is protected more than the people. A good direction, imho, may be to edict (from gov) a directional change with a temporal bound, and financial hit for failing to meet that goal. So: “implement X by date or get fined and shut down.” … ignoring that most nations have allowed corporations inroads to government halls making it virtually impossible to make any real changes that will help the people. We’re screwed without drastic changes, it’s our fault, and it’s only going to get worse before it gets better.