• Pons_Aelius
    link
    fedilink
    171 year ago

    I agree but this is not the way to do it.

    Oil companies pumping it underground is just a way for them to justify business as usual.

    Removing co2 from the atmosphere requires energy input, If that energy comes from a co2 producing source it will never work.

    Developing nuke/wind/solar co2 extraction is possible but this is astroturfing of the highest order.

    • zkfcfbzr
      link
      English
      81 year ago

      I think it’s more nuanced than that.

      Some people are saying it’s bad because they’re using it to “produce more oil” - and that I don’t buy. Sure, they’re directly pumping oil with the CO₂ they inject - but this is oil they’d extract either way, with or without direct air capture. In a strict comparison between the two situations, doing it with direct air capture is less bad than doing it without.

      The actual harm that could come from it is mentioned in the article - that they want to use this to justify pumping for longer than they would otherwise. It was actually a bit shocking to see how brazen and open the oil company representative was about that. If they succeed in using this to justify continued pumping, then that’s definitely bad. I don’t think the politics will work out in their favor though, especially not 10 or 20 years from now.

      But in the long-term I still see this as an absolute win. Above all else, what this technology needs to do is exist and be effective. For that it needs to be invested in heavily, and built and tested and run even when it’s ineffective and unprofitable. We aren’t anywhere near the stage where we have the technological capability to actually do direct air capture on a scale that matters globally. Helping us get to that point, to me, makes this move still a net positive. A pragmatic good.