4 ms·

God I absolutely despise direct air capture as any kind of argument for not doing something to reduce fossil fuel emissions. It never, never makes sense in any

God I absolutely despise direct air capture as any kind of argument for not doing something to reduce fossil fuel emissions. It never, never makes sense in any realistic forseeable future scenario (ie not the pure fantasy that keeps getting thrown around) to capture and store CO2 at 500 or so ppm this way when it is far far far easier to not pull it out of the ground and emit it in the first place. Atm it barely makes sense for easy industry CCS where it's done where the US gov subsidises it to reduce the price of co2 for enhanced oil recovery. It's tantamount to arguing we should jump of the cliffs of dover because we can potentially climb back straight upwards fully disregarding the fact that if you survive no matter which way you turn it, whether you add stairs or elevators, it will always be more of a hassle getting back up than taking that one step of the ledge.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> when it is far far far easier to not pull it out of the ground It is easier to not change how millions of people travel. If we aren’t doing direct air capture, we’ll still have the air travel. It’s a stupid place to try and optimise, and seems more a rhetorical tar pit than place where anyone seriously argues about carbon reduction.
- dotancohen 3y ago
  Of the dozens of times I've flown, only once had it ever been urgent. From what I know of my colleagues and family, the vast majority of air travel is for pleasure. And we live in a country which does not afford us land travel to other countries of interest.
- modo_mario 3y ago
  >It is easier to not change how millions of people travel. Only if you assume we don't have to pull our co2 emissions down drastically in the first place. >If we aren’t doing direct air capture, we’ll still have the air travel. And if we'd account for the effort and cost of the direct air capture to offset it we'd have almost no air traffic and most of would remain would be less practical and fast. We'd have had so so much more runway on this issue if people were willing to go for even just the low hanging fruit. As it stands it appears we and you in particular don't even want to tacle the low hanging fruit wrt this part of the issue and so I presume in general.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> when it is far far far easier to not pull it out of the ground It is easier to not change how millions of people travel. If we aren’t doing direct air capture, we’ll still have the air travel. It’s a stupid place to try and optimise, and seems more a rhetorical tar pit than place where anyone seriously argues about carbon reduction.

dotancohen 3y ago
Of the dozens of times I've flown, only once had it ever been urgent. From what I know of my colleagues and family, the vast majority of air travel is for pleasure. And we live in a country which does not afford us land travel to other countries of interest.
modo_mario 3y ago
>It is easier to not change how millions of people travel. Only if you assume we don't have to pull our co2 emissions down drastically in the first place. >If we aren’t doing direct air capture, we’ll still have the air travel. And if we'd account for the effort and cost of the direct air capture to offset it we'd have almost no air traffic and most of would remain would be less practical and fast. We'd have had so so much more runway on this issue if people were willing to go for even just the low hanging fruit. As it stands it appears we and you in particular don't even want to tacle the low hanging fruit wrt this part of the issue and so I presume in general.