Comment on What can be done to prevent more dangerous heatwaves in Europe?
black0ut@pawb.social 1 week agoCarbon capture technology was always some kind of excuse that execs had to pollute today because we could theoretically fix it in the future.
Despite some technology that works to remove carbon from the atmosphere, it’s just not viable. We output so much CO2 to the atmosphere that we just have no capacity to even build enough carbon capture facilities to reach net zero, and that’s without taking their energy consumption into account. Even if we stopped producing CO2 tomorrow, and suddenly enough carbon capture facilities to capture carbon at the same rate we were releasing it appeared, it would still take decades to make a meaningful change.
And carbon isn’t our only problem. Methane is a way worse greenhouse gas, and we keep releasing it to the atmosphere because it’s cheaper than trying to control it.
This is not to discourage from building such carbon capture technology. If it’s powered by renewables and built without a significant carbon/other contaminants footprint, by all means, build it. But it won’t save us from what’s to come.
JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social 1 week ago
You’re exaggerating. While that’s true, and fits a pattern of such executive / corporate behavior, there’s more to it from what I know. That is, various science researchers around the world really have been studying CC tech as a potential helper to mitigation, if not as a primary solution. That goes back to the late 70’s if I understand correctly.
Last I recall, methane is ~20x more potent than CO2 in the GH effect, and arguably represents one of the more potent tipping points.
My original point was about if CC tech could make a dramatic difference in the CO2 we’ve already placed in the atmosphere. Not just do a ‘working offset.’ I think that still presents problems in mitigation, I’m just not sure why from a science standpoint.