CO2 emissions are not the only problem with burning things for power. Air polution causes an estimated 3.6 million deaths annualy, with the bulk of those (2.1 million) being caused just by ultrafine soot and ozone from burning fues. Additionaly, burning coal produces huge amount of ashes that are full of toxic heavy metals, in quanties that are near impossible to safely dispose of. Most of this ash just gets pilled up, where it it gets blown into the enviroment. (Fun fact, these ash piles are radioactive from naturaly occuring uranium and thorium)
The only way out is to stop burning things as fuel.
Delta15N@lemmy.ca 8 months ago
Because it’s a bandaid on an arterial bleed of a problem and has its own host of issues (anoxia once the algae blooms die off being one of the big ones, aside from the cost of actually doing it on a global scale). Lots of discussion around whether it makes sense to do, but really for the effort to do it, and the unintended effects on the environment, it would probably be better and cheaper to just reduce GHG emissions.
3volver@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Just reducing GHG emissions doesn’t stimulate the economy though.
Claymore@lemm.ee 8 months ago
Well, why not? Any replacement power generation or transportstion systems will require construction and maintenence, just like any other project.
Delta15N@lemmy.ca 8 months ago
Creating an entirely new industry “for the economy” is the reason this is even being contemplated. If you care more about the economy than the planet you live on and the people you share it with, then maybe that makes sense.