3 ms·
One doesn’t exclude the other. Stop emitting carbon where it’s effective, and capture the rest. Unlike pollution, with co2 it’s ok to emit it as long as you cap
by kolinko 3y ago
One doesn’t exclude the other. Stop emitting carbon where it’s effective, and capture the rest. Unlike pollution, with co2 it’s ok to emit it as long as you capture it at the same time anywhere else on the planet.
And yes, in many places it is cheaper to just not emit, but in many other we may never get to that (heating in colder climates without nuclear, agriculture, air travel,
to some extent cement industry)
- gary_0 3y agoIt is indeed a question of "either/or". Any capture solution that made a difference (on a gigaton scale) would require a massive industrial effort, and those limited resources should first tackle implementing renewables and electrification (for which there are many thought-out, actionable plans, not to mention burgeoning profitable industries, unlike carbon capture). The idea of continuing to burn carbon and then creating an entirely new industry to recapture that burned carbon on a massive scale is... kind of obviously something that only benefits the fossil fuel industry. And it doesn't even work, because most of our industrial activity still emits even more carbon. Emitting carbon in the process of capturing carbon is ridiculous; we need to fix the emissions problem first because doing anything else makes the problem worse.