this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023
210 points (94.9% liked)

World News

39102 readers
2708 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Niello@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Other problems with your post aside, you think it's good enough to emit less but not worth it to actively invest in getting the excess carbons out? The problems they are solving overlap, but they are not the same set of problems.

[–] luthis 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The energy required to take carbon out of the atmosphere is at best, double what it took to put it in the atmosphere in the first place. There's seriously strong economic reasons that this is a bad idea.

[–] Niello@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And it's perfectly normal for technology to advance and become more effective and efficient over time.

[–] BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

There are hard limits on recapture efficiency. The only way to make it remove more than it creates is to use energy like geothermal. Even then, the production of a carbon capture facility generates enough emissions that it would take years of constantly running, and you’d only ever reach it if you’re using 100% clean energy to power it.

[–] JWBananas@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

So you build it like a Walmart? 90 percent of the square footage is ~~parking~~ solar?

[–] schroedingershat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Grind up basalt slightly more than we normally do. Spread it out.

It's exothermic.

Rate limited, but more than enough to undo the damage if we stop digging up 95% of fossil fuels.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We're at the point where we can't prevent the consequences of climate change. We can only prevent it from getting worse and mitigating the effects. Even if we stopped all CO2 emissions this second, we'd still be suffering for years.

It's worthwhile for us to look at technologies which can reverse our existing impact to some degree. Finding a way to safely and intelligently remove carbon from the atmosphere may be more expensive, but it has the possibility of fixing our climate much sooner than otherwise, and that's worth it.

It's important though that we don't use it as an excuse to stay the same. The cost of doing this "cleaning" needs to be factored into fossil fuel price so transitioning away from it accelerates. Creating some additional cushion while we continue to do that would be very beneficial.

[–] luthis 1 points 1 year ago

I've already accepted we're fucked. There's some really good ideas out there, and we know exactly where the majority of the carbon is coming from (I posted a graph in here, the biggest contributor is industry) but legislation isn't being put in place to target the biggest emitters. Instead, we're supposed to buy our way out of it by buying electric cars and building more things ie making more industry, when we should be doing the opposite.

You should check out some of Nick Johnson's videos. There are so many empty, decaying houses in the US. And yet, more houses are being built. It's astonishing.

[–] luthis 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Emitting less is possible NOW. Removing carbon already in the air isn't even possible yet. ClimateTown showed this in a recent vid. All efforts should be towards what's possible and effective now rather than towards what's really expensive, not very effective and may may be possible in the future.

[–] Niello@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

What you said is the equivalence of putting all the eggs in one basket, which is a pretty silly use of the human resources available.