Because if the solution isnt actually stopping emissions its basically a feel good scam with no long term sustainability
Ultimately it is a solution for one aspect of the problem, but not a panacea on its own. Yes we have to stop putting carbon into the atmosphere. But we also have to remove it. We could let geology take its time to do that for us, but we’d have a difficult hundred or so millennia in the interim. Might as well try to soak it all back up (powered by non-polluting forms of energy).
CCS has only been proposed by Exxon and others at a very small scale, purely for marketing purposes, so they can say they are helping to capture carbon dioxide and help the climate. It’s just like the “how can you reduce your individual footprint” stuff, where the real answer is “vote out the corrupt politicians owned by Big Oil, and force oil executives to face consequences for what they’ve done to the planet”. Dropping this here, please share.
Carbon storage is a boondoggle and a distraction.
Carbon Capture and sequestration should be able to remove about one rounding errors worth of carbon per year.
It should, but will not. What it will do is increase profits marginally milking fed dollars for test projects that go over budget and over timeframe without working, and without them actually trying.
Since Bush at least they have been funding this stuff. Technohopium to justify biz as usual.
We can always bury it deep down inside and never deal with it like we do with atmospheric CO2. Maybe transition 3 or 4 coal plants to “natural” gas and have brands sponsor logging company efforts to “plant trees.”
Yeah, you bury the carbon and release the oxygen molecules
For anyone still typing “CO2“ instead of CO₂: Just put “CO₂” into your text replacement, autocorrect, espanso config or whatever and get taken seriously. please? #CO₂ #FFS
The ultimate solution is fewer humans. I’ve seen Earth’s population more than double in my lifetime.
I think population is also a driver of immigration and immigrant hate.
Behold, the eco fascist in the wild, promoting mass murder as a solution to something that can only be solved with cooperation.
Edit: There are extremely specific people who would benefit the world by ceasing to exist, and those people are billionaires. There are way to make billionaires not exist other then killing them.
Fewer humans will still warm the world so long as they burn fossil fuels.
LOL, not at the rate we’re at now! C’mon, you don’t think the population going from 3.7 billion in my childhood to 8+ billion today isn’t a major factor?
People think of their personal habits, mostly driving, when they think of global CO2. Factor in all those people eating. That’s a shitload of farm CO2, and other waste. And look how fat we are in the first world!
Concrete is a major driver of CO2 emissions, something like 7-8%. Guess what all of us need to build our homes and infrastructure.
On top of that, worldwide poverty has nosedived in that time, and that’s a great thing, but people that weren’t burning fuel and needing plastics are doing so now. Even as population has exploded, poverty is still riding hard on the down slope. That lift out of poverty requires energy, and shitloads of it.
Depopulation is going to cause worldwide economic depression. But whether by individual choice, government decree or climate change, it’s gonna happen. I don’t know of any economic system that can weather this.
When we burn fossil fuels, CO2 concentrations stay elevated basically forever in human terms. Half the burning since the industrial revolution has happened in the last ~30 years. The human population is young, so to make the kind of difference you’re thinking of, it would mean a campaign of mass murder.
I’m not in it for that.
You can get a very modest difference in future emissions by encouraging the use of contraceptives, and educating girls, but it isn’t going to get you out of the need for a rapid shift off fossil fuels.
