Gregory's ServerPeople say "carbon capture is necessary" - it's not.
It's a pipe dream. A distraction cooked up by the fossil fuel lobby.
What we need is to stop burning fossil fuels.
 42 comments
@Habrok42 I don't know what you mean by enough. Every gram of CO2 we don't put in the atmosphere helps, and we still have to do all we can to limit the harm. Doing everything possible to decrease fossil fuel use is a good first step. Concerning carbon capture: that money is better spent on energy transition, electrification, climate resiliency investments. Those are things that will meaningfully impact peoples livelihoods. Carbon capture won't. We're not going back to where we were.  @mzedp By "enough" I mean the following: @mzedp according to IPCC reports we will need CCS to limit temperature increase in all scenarios. I agree with you, CCS should not prevent us to reduce now and drastically burning fossil fuels. Itβs absolutely not a miracle technology. @arkaon Localized CCS for specific industries is great. Direct air capture is a money sink.   There is at least one COβ neutral process for cement. https://news.mit.edu/2019/carbon-dioxide-emissions-free-cement-0916 And electric arc furnaces can replace coal for steel. @mzedp Ban fossil fuels and sue corporations to cover the cleanup costs. We also need to ban petrolium based plastics and styrofoam @TrackerRoo @mzedp absolutely. Same for petro derived fertilizers. The solution to climate change begins with conservation. Just think, in the last 2 years they've almost captured 6 seconds of CO2 emissions. And that's the biggest project. The article says it's too expensive, but the problem is it's too slow. Way too slow. 4000 tons CO2 a year is a joke. As mau says, we need to stop burning fossil fuels. That is a sine qua non to saving the earth. And we also need to stop destroying forests and instead replant as much as we can. Even that will take decades. But we don't have decades if we keep burning fossil fuels. @mzedp Carbon capture is necessary just like a mop is necessary to clean up when your bathtub over flows. The problem is first you need to actually turn the tap off (stop burning fossil fuels) before you reach for the mop. @mzedp You're very right that we need to stop burning fossil carbon, but it wouldn't hurt to *also* stop destroying the self-replicating biological carbon capture systems we already have. @rorrison Trees are great, but they're nowhere near enough. If we stop all emissions today, it'll still take them tens of thousands of years to sequester all that CO2. @mzedp .... when really, carbon capture can just be grasses and forests and intact ecosystems. but nooooooooo, these fools cld never acknowledge nature does what it needs to π€¦π»ββοΈ  @mzedp Problem is we've reached a point where it's obvious they're not going to stop burning fossil fuels. Since that's pretty much impossible, we're looking at other solutions like carbon capture and geoengineering. We have to do SOMETHING. And as much as I'd like us to stop burning fossil fuels, it's just not happening without a massive, world-wide revolution which will cause just as much if not more suffering than climate change.  @mzedp I mean, work is being done for that with electric cars and stuff @MatthewKay @mzedp why lol (other than the batteries) @MatthewKay @luana Nah, EV's are fine actually. Batteries aren't great but can be recycled and they are infinitely better than fossil fuels. Sustainable, being the key. Current designs of EVs are dumb because car manufacturers have been trying to copy fuel burning cars, but hopefully they'll wise up soon and make some sensible EVs. @mzedp @luana What about the infrastructure that supports these vehicles? Granted the batteries can be recycled, but the devastation to the environment in acquiring the elements to initially make the batteries is unacceptable. Plus tires and all the particles thrown into the air by them is a serious health hazard. Should I continue? No EVβs are not an option. It all has to start with #degrowth @MatthewKay @luana The infrastructure is not a problem. It can be improved, and the load is not going to be equal to the peak load produced by every car. It's manageable. Plus, not everyone will be driving a car, god willing. The resources needed are also not a limitation. I don't believe in "degrowth" except "degrowth" of fossil fuels.  We need both. CO2 has a 30 year delay. The heat we're feeling now is due to fuel we burned in the 90s, and our fuel use has grown exponentially since then. We both need to stop burning fuel AND lower atmospheric CO2 ppm. @mzedp@mas.to Weirdly enough it seems nature is really good at carbon capture, but as usual supply siders do anything to push their agenda.  @mzedp well, we do need to stop burning fossil fuels. that's not going to be good enough, however. @ellenor2000 It's the single biggest thing we can do. Everything else pales in comparison. |
@mzedp Unfortunately, we are beyond the point where the stopping of burning fossil fuels would have been enough, so we have to do both.
I agree that "carbon capture" is used as an excuse to continue burning fossil fuels orders of magnitude more than can mitigated by all the options for carbon capture combined.