You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
46 points

That’s a false dichotomy in a lot of the comments here

We do both

Carbon capture isn’t so we can continue to use fossil fuels. It’s because once we get to 0 emissions we still need to draw down the carbon in the atmosphere

An ounce of prevention is almost always worth a pound of cure but we’re still going to want that cure because every extra tenth of a degree we can bring the Earth back to normal is going to be worth it

permalink
report
reply
20 points
*

Nah, we don’t do both. Carbon capture projects are bullshit for the most part, see https://time.com/6264772/study-most-carbon-credits-are-bogus/ for example. Some are actually generating more carbon, not less overall. Instead, companies have been using this as a way to “buy” their target metrics, except they are buying offsets that don’t really exist. And they use this to market their products as green/net zero products, which incentivizes even more consumption.

So overall this whole thing is most likely a net negative, as in we would be better without them. And honestly is not surprising at all, technology is not magic. It’s just people want perfect solutions so we don’t have to do anything and the problem goes away, so they keep falling for this bullshit. Case in point, your comment lol.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Oh, and I thought they made carbon capture viable (assuming clean energy). Meh

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points
*

Carbon capture isn’t so we can continue to use fossil fuels.

But that is literally how it is used in the official plans and projections by governments and the UN. They nearly all plan with an increase of fossil fuel use and later (unrealistic) draw-down to reach “net zero” by the 2050ties or so.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Carbon capture isn’t so we can continue to use fossil fuels. It’s because once we get to 0 emissions we still need to draw down the carbon in the atmosphere

‘Carbon capture’ technology is stupid. Planting trees and not cutting down any more, that is the way to go. They capture carbon, lots of it. That ‘technology’ has worked for millions of years.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Yes that is a great solution if we had infinite space and time also if we weren’t concerned about the natural world and were happy to destroy all the biodiversity and unique biomes by converting into forests. Oh and if it would actually work of course, but that doesn’t matter in feelgood fantasy world.

I love trees, I’ve volunteered planting trees and donates to woodlands and all sorts of things but they are not going to save us from the mess we’re in. They’re also not as simple as they should be, management is crucial as there’s a surprising amount of things that can go wrong on a large scale which would totally fuck the environment - especially with foodweb issues and soil chemistry.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

destroy all the biodiversity

Nice strawman, is it biodegradable?

permalink
report
parent
reply

solarpunk memes

!memes@slrpnk.net

Create post

For when you need a laugh!

The definition of a “meme” here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!

But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server’s ideals.

Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators’ discretion.

Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines

Have fun!

Community stats

  • 6.2K

    Monthly active users

  • 271

    Posts

  • 3K

    Comments