this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2024
79 points (95.4% liked)

science

14741 readers
603 users here now

just science related topics. please contribute

note: clickbait sources/headlines aren't liked generally. I've posted crap sources and later deleted or edit to improve after complaints. whoops, sry

Rule 1) Be kind.

lemmy.world rules: https://mastodon.world/about

I don't screen everything, lrn2scroll

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Apollonius_Cone@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Isn't this just greenwashing? What an exercise in futility to pay to extract CO2 from the atmosphere whilst pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

[–] Fur_Fox_Sheikh@sh.itjust.works 5 points 9 months ago

If done instead of reducing current emissions, 100%. That said, there is a real need to invest in carbon capture technology now so that it can be more useful in the future. It's a small part of the overall strategy to improve our climate future, but an important one as we get further along in the century and emissions already are reduced. So, yeah, if people hold up this technology and say "see, let's keep drilling", fuck that. But as long as it's an "and" not an "or", this is a good thing.

[–] awwwyissss@lemm.ee 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Excess CO2 is wreaking havoc on our planet and quickly getting worse. Why wouldn't we try to pull it out of the atmosphere?

[–] HerrBeter@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Because no CCS method has worked. Besides the sea equilibrium means CO2 will be favoured and replaced.

There are no free rides on the thermodynamic train, this energy will probably come from fossil fuels depending on where in the US. I'm not against the idea, but it's been a false promise of hope for a decade or so.