The US just invested more than $1 billion into carbon removal / The move represents a big step in the effort to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere—and slow down climate change.::undefined
The US just invested more than $1 billion into carbon removal / The move represents a big step in the effort to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere—and slow down climate change.::undefined
The problem is, that this technology is already being used to greenwash fossil fuels. There’s a gas power plant currently running that got subsidies and good press for building a CCS facility next to the power plant. Something like 1% of the emissions were actually sequestered, but millions were wasted.
If these subsidies are actually tied to reasonable requirements, I’m all in. History shows, though, that this is usually not the case.
Part of the problem with new technologies is that they’re inherently less efficient than the same technologies once they’ve been further developed. And the problem with that is that it takes millions of dollars develop and deploy new technologies.
This was once the biggest argument against solar and wind. It was expensive and markedly less efficient than coal. However, solar and wind are now pretty good and continuing to get better. All because people were willing to invest the many millions of dollars to develop those technologies.
This is almost always the argument with new technologies. But to make the argument that it’s a good reason to stop investing in a wide variety of technologies that could literally help save the world is shortsighted.
You completely missed my point.
This technology is currently used to greenwash fossil fuels. With tax payer money.
That is, you pay taxes, that are paid to big oil and gas firms to pollute the planet even further. The CCS is just window dressing. It does nothing. And that’s what I’m afraid will happen again.
CCS only makes sense, if the CO2 is actually pulled out of the carbon cycle. Otherwise it’s fraud.
Yes, I did completely miss your point. However, I think these are two different issues. One is that oil companies are benefiting from our tax system and using carbon capture for good PR. The other is that we are trying a variety of things to help reduce the effects of climate change and one of those things is carbon capture. Oil companies using using carbon capture to gain good favor doesn’t preclude it from being a potentially helpful process.
But it’s not helping, that’s my point!
Fossil companies emit more CO2 because of this technology. That’s not helpful.
It’s a regulatory problem, but let’s be honest, regulations are hardly written against major companies.
It is not “fraud” and it very much does something. Even if all it does is offset a few fossil fuel plants… that is still offsetting those plants.
In a good faith system? This would still be the route. You need power NOW. So if you can set these up, you can offset the existing fossil fuel plants while you set up renewables and actual green energy. At which point, these facilities are now attempting to undo past work or just offset other sources of carbon.
And in our existing bad faith system? We obviously can’t stop here. But this is still buying us time to… continue to do nothing. But this is at least something and calling it “fraud” and saying “it does nothing” is… well, to steal some overly antagonistic language: fraud.
Or, you simply invest the money in renewables and shut down the fossil plants. Cheaper, quicker, better.
Full agreement.
But selling that to idiots who actively want the world to suffer is a big lift and has been for decades.
A less effective delaying action is not fraud
But you cannot escape the tyranny of the second law of thermodynamics. It will always be more efficient to not release the carbon in the first place.
I agree. But we are not there yet. And there is already a lot of carbon in the air.