The incoming Trump administration will have a say in whether federally backed direct air capture projects in Louisiana move forward

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    212 days ago

    Worst then that, it is an excuse to continue or increase emissions and distract people from real solutions. We need to reduce emissions first. It might be valuable someday once the low hanging fruit has been dealt with.

  • ComradeSharkfucker
    link
    fedilink
    English
    17
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Its a waste of valuable resources that could be used on known, more efficient ways of reducing emissions. Carbon capture isn’t here to save us, it is here to save oil and gas

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    11
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    It’s not a single bullet solution. There is no single bullet solution.
    It is one bullet, in a hail of bullets fired at the problem. They’ll all be needed.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    11 day ago

    I would say its a yes and. Yes it costs a lot of money and it’s not as efficient as trees long term. But Trees + these machines + no longer burning and releasing CO2 at the current rate + land rewilding = a chance at survival.

  • atro_city
    link
    fedilink
    62 days ago

    Use coal to pull carbon from the air. Makes total sense! /s

  • thejevans
    link
    fedilink
    52 days ago

    It will be necessary once we’ve done all the much more effective and cheaper stuff. For now, it’s important to make it better for when we need to focus on it. That said, anything more than academic at this point is probably designed to allow emitters to keep emitting longer.

    • HubertManne
      link
      fedilink
      32 days ago

      If its viable enough and could be stop/started quickly enough I could see it as a dump for negative cost electricity.

  • Optional
    link
    32 days ago

    It’s a big fuckin’ mystery.