3 ms·
Right, but the argument goes there is no amount of carbon capture that will make this process make sense: (subsidized) fossil fuels --> chemical fertilizers --
by InSteady 3y ago
Right, but the argument goes there is no amount of carbon capture that will make this process make sense:
(subsidized) fossil fuels --> chemical fertilizers --> (subsidized) monocropped corn --> (subsidized) ethanol production --> (subsidized) carbon capture, of only a portion of emissions at the ethanol and fertilizer production stages
It is greenwashing in the sense that ethanol biofuel is an inefficient and dirty process that was never a viable alternative at any reasonable scale, and this program is pumping tax dollars earmarked for climate crisis mitigation into industries that have never been motivated to do anything meaningful for climate or ecology disasters.
- fnordpiglet 3y agoYou’re addressing a political problem from an engineering perspective. As long as the US constitution grants two senators per state regardless of population, thus allowing democracy to operate free of human need, farm states will create policy the enriches their farming megacorps at the expense of humans and human life. Doing nothing is perhaps not greenwashing, and taking a principled stand against agri-industry subsidies will feel like doing something, but the argi industry subsidies will continue as will the CO2 emissions unabated. Perhaps doing something is better than nothing?