• Rentlar
      link
      fedilink
      331 year ago

      Hey, I think the tech has some promise, but my opinion is this: basing our goals and pledges to solve the climate crisis on technology that hasn’t yet proven itself is putting the cart before the horse.

      We need to set the objective to stop the increase of emissions, and then we can also try out sucking carbon emissions out as we do that to help accelerate our fix to the climate problem.

      Whether the tech works or not, fossil fuel companies as I see it, are just using it as a delay tactic to the world reducing its dependence on their business: by making the central issue something that will help, but not ultimately solve the problem.

    • Uranium3006
      link
      fedilink
      31 year ago

      yeah, that’s legit, not the coal power plant nonsense. at this point I’d consider carbfix et al. to be at the R&D stage.

    • @Sorgan71
      link
      01 year ago

      It would be better if they put that money into renewable energy.

        • @Sorgan71
          link
          01 year ago

          Because carbon capture will never reduce carbon as much as competing with non-renewable energy companies

          • @sturlabragason
            link
            11 year ago

            It seems we don’t have matching initial assumptions, I apologize I should have been clearer.

            When I think carbon capture I mean reducing the amount of currently existing CO2 in the atmosphere, not offloading new CO2 that is being generated.

            This means then that at the same time we could produce less CO2 trough renewable energy sources.

            • @Sorgan71
              link
              01 year ago

              But using renewable energy will reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere more than carbon capture, just not directly.