@mzedp Unfortunately, we are beyond the point where...

@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.

Like 5 Aug 2023 at 16:31 | Wall-to-wall | Open on chaos.social

2 comments

mau 🏳️‍🌈#PhaseOutFossilFuels

@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.

5 Aug 2023 at 16:57 | Open on mas.to

Habrok

@mzedp By "enough" I mean the following:
even if we stopped emitting fossil CO2 now worldwide, the planet would quite sure remain in a state not favorable for humans or even keep moving to less favorable states for some time (as indicated by all the weather extremes, jumps in ocean temperature and loss of sea ice this year).
To have a chance (depending on tipping points) of a climate favorable for humans in the long run, at least some of the CO2 has to be removed from the atmosphere.

5 Aug 2023 at 21:18 | Open on chaos.social