4 ms·

This still becomes another CO2 emission that is unnecessary. Depending on the quantity of CO2 being emitted by this combustion compared to simply requiring the

This still becomes another CO2 emission that is unnecessary. Depending on the quantity of CO2 being emitted by this combustion compared to simply requiring the methane to be captured, it’s still bad. It’s still CO2 emissions.

kragen 3y ago
be careful about trying to decide what's necessary for other people; they may decide that the carbon dioxide emission of your breathing is unnecessary, and that it would be better to permanently sequester your carbon maybe you think that you, or people like you, are the ones who would be making the decisions about what is necessary and what is unnecessary. that is a dangerously naïve viewpoint; power and coercion have their own logic
- defrost 3y ago
  Maybe they are clearly differentiating deep sequested carbon from gas wells from surface carbon cycles and not making veiled threats and muddy sophistry.
  - kragen 3y ago
    it is true that the threat tayloralexander was making was not at all veiled
    - TaylorAlexander 3y ago
      The “threat” that a government might regulate the operations of a corporation is not a threat at all, that’s a very normal policy discussion. Your suggestion that I am inviting threats against people is an fantasy and unrelated to this discussion.
      - kragen 3y ago
        certainly discussing whether liberalism or authoritarianism is better is a very normal policy discussion, but that doesn't mean that advocating authoritarianism isn't threatening. it's far more threatening than simply pointing a gun at someone. and when governments start prohibiting things because they're not necessary you have descended pretty far into authoritarianism; you're in north korea 'illegal microwave oven' and 'unapproved haircut' territory how many of the things you did today were necessary? even if the answer is more than zero, that's probably only because you interpreted 'necessary' as 'necessary to taylor alexander'. but you can rest assured that an authoritarian government will not interpret it that way unless you are the head of state
- TaylorAlexander 3y ago
  I’m sorry but this is nonsense. If corporations burning methane is an alternative to capturing it then from an engineering perspective those emissions are not strictly necessary - that is, a solution exists which would not require those emissions. Regulators could decide to require this capture equipment. The potential down side would be costs to operators which must be considered. This has absolutely nothing to do with deciding who is allowed to breathe and to suggest otherwise is absurd.

kragen 3y ago

be careful about trying to decide what's necessary for other people; they may decide that the carbon dioxide emission of your breathing is unnecessary, and that it would be better to permanently sequester your carbon maybe you think that you, or people like you, are the ones who would be making the decisions about what is necessary and what is unnecessary. that is a dangerously naïve viewpoint; power and coercion have their own logic

defrost 3y ago
Maybe they are clearly differentiating deep sequested carbon from gas wells from surface carbon cycles and not making veiled threats and muddy sophistry.
- kragen 3y ago
  it is true that the threat tayloralexander was making was not at all veiled
  - TaylorAlexander 3y ago
    The “threat” that a government might regulate the operations of a corporation is not a threat at all, that’s a very normal policy discussion. Your suggestion that I am inviting threats against people is an fantasy and unrelated to this discussion.
    - kragen 3y ago
      certainly discussing whether liberalism or authoritarianism is better is a very normal policy discussion, but that doesn't mean that advocating authoritarianism isn't threatening. it's far more threatening than simply pointing a gun at someone. and when governments start prohibiting things because they're not necessary you have descended pretty far into authoritarianism; you're in north korea 'illegal microwave oven' and 'unapproved haircut' territory how many of the things you did today were necessary? even if the answer is more than zero, that's probably only because you interpreted 'necessary' as 'necessary to taylor alexander'. but you can rest assured that an authoritarian government will not interpret it that way unless you are the head of state
TaylorAlexander 3y ago
I’m sorry but this is nonsense. If corporations burning methane is an alternative to capturing it then from an engineering perspective those emissions are not strictly necessary - that is, a solution exists which would not require those emissions. Regulators could decide to require this capture equipment. The potential down side would be costs to operators which must be considered. This has absolutely nothing to do with deciding who is allowed to breathe and to suggest otherwise is absurd.