For most countries around the world, sourcing energy entirely from wind, solar, geothermal, and hydropower by 2050 would reduce their energy needs and costs, improve air quality, and help slow climate change, according to a study in Environmental Science & Technology.
  • acargitz@lemmy.ca
    18·
    5 days ago

    The only reasons to not switch are political: the threatened power of the fossil capitalists and the geopolitical struggle with China.

    • Pup Biru@aussie.zoneEnglish
      3·
      4 days ago

      there are some applications that just don’t work without energy dense fuels: planes, rockets, etc

      in these cases, i’d argue it makes sense to run them on fossil or bio fuels and then pay to offset 100% of their emission with carbon capture, or in the case of bio fuels perhaps that’s enough since the carbon was captured and you’re just re-emitting it?

      either way, emitting carbon isn’t the problem: not cleaning up after yourself is the problem… if it’s more economical to burn fuel and clean up elsewhere, fine… as long as it gets cleaned up

  • gi1242@lemmy.world
    14·
    5 days ago

    unfortunately the polluters do a lot of greenwashing to get public goodwill. plastic recycling is one of them unfortunately. less than 1% of plastic in use today is recycled…

    in the old days plastic recycling would only accept certain kinds of plastic. now they take everything. they don’t recycle everything. they take everything. and throw out the other kinds at the recycling facility

    I wonder if carbon capture is similar greenwashing…

    • Shikam@slrpnk.netEnglish
      3·
      5 days ago

      Yeah, we’re largely past the arguments about the economics of global warming and should be well into the discussions on what is technically feasible. Not many costs are too great at this point.

    • SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world
      3·
      5 days ago

      Yeah net zero is not enough and using trees and plants to capture carbon probably isn’t enough either. We burned millions of years of plant growth in just a few centuries.

    • MrMakabar@slrpnk.netEnglish
      32·
      5 days ago

      We currently emit a lot so the choice is: emit less with renewables or keep emitting but capture the carbon

      Since renewables are much cheaper we reduce emissions much faster then going with carbon capture. That might be a good idea down the line, but currently 80% of our energy comes from fossil fuels, so down the line is probably decades.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    6·
    5 days ago

    Carbon capture WILL be necessary but is absolutely less than useless until every possible power user has switched to renewable electricity

    Carbon capture right now is quite literally actively working to make it worse, so please don’t do carbon capture except for research purposes

    • bss03@infosec.pubEnglish
      1·
      4 days ago

      Came here to basically say this. We are going to have to do intentional carbon capture to even reach “net zero”, and it would be good reach “net negative”.

      But, we just gotta stop burning fossil fuels. It would also be nice not to go through our uranium, but I’d rather be using that for base load than coal. I fully expect we can do everything off of solar, wind, and tidal, plus gravity batteries, eventually tho.

    • Fluffy Kitty Cat@slrpnk.netEnglish
      1·
      4 days ago

      basically everything is research scale right now, and we need to do full scale tests to make sure everything works and learn how to optimize things. there’s also non-DAC options to work on too

  • monk@lemmy.unboiled.info
    5·
    5 days ago

    Oh, so will you pay the delta to the uncooperative countries to switch to renewables? No? Then we’ll have to do the real expensive thing: both.

  • tunetardis@lemmy.caEnglish
    4·
    5 days ago

    I have no doubt that renewables are the lowest hanging fruit at the moment, and that we could get to net-zero mostly using them. But there is a big difference between mostly and entirely. As you approach the higher-hanging fruit, things get exponentially more expensive, and there may come a point at which some form of carbon capture is needed to cover that last segment of emissions? Also, I see no mention of nuclear here. I suspect it will need to play a role, though how large that would be remains uncertain. It should definitely be included in any cost analysis though.

  • MalReynolds@slrpnk.netEnglish
    3·
    5 days ago

    Thing is, the time for net-zero has passed, did you hear that whooshing sound?

    To pull back from the brink, what is needed is net-negative, which ain’t happening without capture (alongside massive reduction in emissions), economics be damned, it’s an existential threat, it’s about survival. Could be as simple as massive reforestation, could be fusion generators pulling CO2 out of the air, will probably be many different things, but learning what works, as soon as possible, is imperative.

    • Skua@kbin.earth
      5·
      5 days ago

      We’re nowhere near net zero, though. We do need to get there first. Since carbon capture removes far less carbon per money spent on it than replacing fossil fuel power plants with clean options does, carbon capture doesn’t really make sense right now

      The varieities that might work out are the ones that give some other benefit for now. Afforestation can help prevent desertification, for example

  • Nora@lemmy.ml
    43·
    5 days ago

    If any of you give a shit about the environment or animals, go vegan.

    Going vegan is the single biggest thing you can do to reduce your carbon footprint. apart from unaliving yourself.