3 ms·

I would generally agree with that statement. However in this case I disagree. Why? Because I think carbon capture sells the idea that with the right technology

by atoav 3y ago

I would generally agree with that statement. However in this case I disagree. Why? Because I think carbon capture sells the idea that with the right technology we could just continue doing what we are doing. It is the equivalent of an obese person stuffing food in their mouth and telling you fat can always be surgically removed. Yeah sure it can, to some degree, but you do see how that doesn't fix the problem? Do you see how them saying that might in fact be worse than them saying nothing? So in my mind carbon capture is something that we should work on if we are capable of the realization that the role it will play in fixing the problem is utterly insignificant. If you think it is the solution, carbon capture sells a false hope and prolongs the struggle — and at least where I am from proponents of carbon capture are the people who definitely don't want to reduce their CO2 output. Pointing at some future technology instead of doing something now is actively harmful. And I am not sure the actual positive effect of such technology would outweigh the negative effect it has as an excuse to justify not doing what is necessary now.

rayiner 3y ago
> Because I think carbon capture sells the idea that with the right technology we could just continue doing what we are doing. It is the equivalent of an obese person stuffing food in their mouth and telling you fat can always be surgically removed. Yeah sure it can, to some degree, but you do see how that doesn't fix the problem? Do you see how them saying that might in fact be worse than them saying nothing? What you’re overlooking is that we will keep doing whatever we’re doing, for the same reason telling people to diet and exercise isn’t doing jack shit for the obesity crisis. We need Ozempic for the climate. Because the only alternative is 4C of warming.
- Teever 3y ago
  If that's the case maybe we as a species should die? Or at least enough of the species that we change our behaviour for good? It's unfortunate that the ecosystem has to suffer.
  - tticvs 3y ago
    "The future looks somewhat difficult, better give up and go extinct" Fortunately natural selection will remove this mindset eventually. It's unfortunate that the species has to suffer it in the meantime.
    - Teever 3y ago
      I never suggested that we should give up. It may just be that this group of people isn't up to the challenge and, like you said, natural selection is necessary to produce a group that is up to the challenge. Unfortunately that selection may come too late and much of the ecosystem may suffer for it.
      - tticvs 3y ago
        > maybe we as a species should die? Sounds a lot like giving up to me. Wishing for human extinction makes you an enemy of all mankind btw
        Teever 3y ago
        No no no, I'm saying that objectively maybe we should all die. From a subjective perspective I'm going to keep fighting to the detriment of all the others around to the very bitter end and take down as many of them as I can, just like the real enemy of life that I am.
- atoav 3y ago
  Yeah, that would be very soothing would it? But every prediction by every scientist I read says that even if we did wonders with that technology and it works way better than expected and is way cheaper than expected it is too little too late. So either we change our way or we deive ourself into climate extinction. Since profits and geostrategic advantage seem to be more important than the survival of the human race it will be the latter. And someone somewhere in 2050 will start the alibi-CO2-capture machine, that was built by a tiny fraction of the oil money from this year. If this comes across as cynical that might be, because it is. Trusting on carbon capture technology despite the presence of evidence¹ that it won't do shit is something we cannot afford. Don't get me wrong, we should still research and fund it. But you don't want to be that politician that wants to keep no speed limits on highways "because future carbon capture technology will solve this". No, future carbon capture technology won't solve this, it will solve a tiny fraction of this. Pretending that it will do more creates false hope and a distorted perception. ¹ see IPCC report: : "Even if realized at its full potential, CCS will only account for about 2.4% of the world’s carbon mitigation by 2030"
brigadier132 3y ago
Here's the problem with analogies > you do see how that doesn't fix the problem It literally does fix the problem.
- atoav 3y ago
  Analogies always require you to read them favourably or they fall appart. According to the IPCC report carbon capture at best would be able to reduce 2.4 percent of the global emissions by 2030. So to stay with our analogy, that would be like cutting the fat on a small part of your body and taking that as an excuse to eat on. Unless we talk unicorn-pie-in-the-sky-fantasy-technology that can suck all carbon out off the air on the snip of a finger, any technology has to be measured within the bounds of its possibilities and not in fantasyland.
cactusfrog 3y ago
Should carbon capture should be worked in secret because mentioning it delivers false hope?

by atoav 3y ago

rayiner 3y ago

> Because I think carbon capture sells the idea that with the right technology we could just continue doing what we are doing. It is the equivalent of an obese person stuffing food in their mouth and telling you fat can always be surgically removed. Yeah sure it can, to some degree, but you do see how that doesn't fix the problem? Do you see how them saying that might in fact be worse than them saying nothing? What you’re overlooking is that we will keep doing whatever we’re doing, for the same reason telling people to diet and exercise isn’t doing jack shit for the obesity crisis. We need Ozempic for the climate. Because the only alternative is 4C of warming.

Teever 3y ago
If that's the case maybe we as a species should die? Or at least enough of the species that we change our behaviour for good? It's unfortunate that the ecosystem has to suffer.
- tticvs 3y ago
  "The future looks somewhat difficult, better give up and go extinct" Fortunately natural selection will remove this mindset eventually. It's unfortunate that the species has to suffer it in the meantime.
  - Teever 3y ago
    I never suggested that we should give up. It may just be that this group of people isn't up to the challenge and, like you said, natural selection is necessary to produce a group that is up to the challenge. Unfortunately that selection may come too late and much of the ecosystem may suffer for it.
    - tticvs 3y ago
      > maybe we as a species should die? Sounds a lot like giving up to me. Wishing for human extinction makes you an enemy of all mankind btw
      - Teever 3y ago
        No no no, I'm saying that objectively maybe we should all die. From a subjective perspective I'm going to keep fighting to the detriment of all the others around to the very bitter end and take down as many of them as I can, just like the real enemy of life that I am.
atoav 3y ago
Yeah, that would be very soothing would it? But every prediction by every scientist I read says that even if we did wonders with that technology and it works way better than expected and is way cheaper than expected it is too little too late. So either we change our way or we deive ourself into climate extinction. Since profits and geostrategic advantage seem to be more important than the survival of the human race it will be the latter. And someone somewhere in 2050 will start the alibi-CO2-capture machine, that was built by a tiny fraction of the oil money from this year. If this comes across as cynical that might be, because it is. Trusting on carbon capture technology despite the presence of evidence¹ that it won't do shit is something we cannot afford. Don't get me wrong, we should still research and fund it. But you don't want to be that politician that wants to keep no speed limits on highways "because future carbon capture technology will solve this". No, future carbon capture technology won't solve this, it will solve a tiny fraction of this. Pretending that it will do more creates false hope and a distorted perception. ¹ see IPCC report: : "Even if realized at its full potential, CCS will only account for about 2.4% of the world’s carbon mitigation by 2030"

brigadier132 3y ago

Here's the problem with analogies > you do see how that doesn't fix the problem It literally does fix the problem.

atoav 3y ago
Analogies always require you to read them favourably or they fall appart. According to the IPCC report carbon capture at best would be able to reduce 2.4 percent of the global emissions by 2030. So to stay with our analogy, that would be like cutting the fat on a small part of your body and taking that as an excuse to eat on. Unless we talk unicorn-pie-in-the-sky-fantasy-technology that can suck all carbon out off the air on the snip of a finger, any technology has to be measured within the bounds of its possibilities and not in fantasyland.

cactusfrog 3y ago

Should carbon capture should be worked in secret because mentioning it delivers false hope?