poVoq@slrpnk.net to solarpunk memes@slrpnk.netEnglish · 1 year agoCarbon Capture...slrpnk.netimagemessage-square139fedilinkarrow-up11.46Karrow-down155
arrow-up11.41Karrow-down1imageCarbon Capture...slrpnk.netpoVoq@slrpnk.net to solarpunk memes@slrpnk.netEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square139fedilink
minus-squareSorgan71@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down1·1 year agoIt would be better if they put that money into renewable energy.
minus-squaresturlabragason@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 year agoWhy not both? Reduce on all fronts.
minus-squareSorgan71@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down1·1 year agoBecause carbon capture will never reduce carbon as much as competing with non-renewable energy companies
minus-squaresturlabragason@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 year agoIt seems we don’t have matching initial assumptions, I apologize I should have been clearer. When I think carbon capture I mean reducing the amount of currently existing CO2 in the atmosphere, not offloading new CO2 that is being generated. This means then that at the same time we could produce less CO2 trough renewable energy sources.
minus-squareSorgan71@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down1·1 year agoBut using renewable energy will reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere more than carbon capture, just not directly.
It would be better if they put that money into renewable energy.
Why not both? Reduce on all fronts.
Because carbon capture will never reduce carbon as much as competing with non-renewable energy companies
It seems we don’t have matching initial assumptions, I apologize I should have been clearer.
When I think carbon capture I mean reducing the amount of currently existing CO2 in the atmosphere, not offloading new CO2 that is being generated.
This means then that at the same time we could produce less CO2 trough renewable energy sources.
But using renewable energy will reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere more than carbon capture, just not directly.