Recent searches
Search options
Some people say, "Alongside rapid and drastic decarbonization, carbon dioxide removal (CDR) will be needed to meet climate goals."
I say no! Unless we decarbonize drastically, CDR will be useless.
So we say, "AFTER rapid and drastic decarbonization, CDR will be needed to meet climate goals."
@davidho
You are doing good work. Lets add some hash tags so folks will find the message.
Some people say, "Alongside rapid and drastic decarbonization, carbon dioxide removal (CDR) will be needed to meet climate goals."
I say no! Unless we decarbonize drastically, CDR will be useless.
So we say,
"AFTER rapid and drastic decarbonization, CDR will be needed to meet climate goals."
#CDR #decarbonization #climate #climateChange #wordsMatter
#democracy is more than voting.
@davidho It's not an either/or question. We need to do both.
@Sibshops @davidho The problem is that we don't have any good CDR technology, and certainly nothing that comes close to being able to keep up with emissions. It requires wast amounts of energy, and as long as our energy still rely partially on fossil fuels CDR efforts could cause more emissions than they make up for. It is great to do some research, but building plants at scale is nonsensical when we still rely heavily on black energy sources.
@NohatCoder @Sibshops @davidho
"Building plants at scale" 
We could also, like, just plant plants. That's a proven way to reduce carbon and completely sustainable as a practice.
@RnDanger @NohatCoder @davidho To be fair, organic plants don't have permanent carbon capture like a factory would provide.
@Sibshops @RnDanger @NohatCoder @davidho neither do factories. All of them ultimately rely on capturing CO2 in containers (either caves or man made) and hoping for the best. Real CO2 capture is only feasible when the whole chain (including manufacturing of the equipment) is done with non-fossil sources, so we need that first in abundance
@Sibshops @NohatCoder @davidho
The carbon stays there until it's burned out or whatever, sure. But i would be happy to have a rich biosphere full of living carbon instead of a mineral formation or whatever they expect to make happen when they figure out the secrets to this tech.
@raphaelmorgan @davidho True, but eventually the tap will run out of water and all we will have are cups.
#FBPE @davidho I don't think we have time to do one after the other is completed, but sure, stopping making new pollution has to be a more urgent priority than clearing up historic pollution. We must have both.
@davidho we need to do everything we can ASAP. Understand the danger is that CDR could be seen as lessening the pressure on decarbonization, but it would be unfortunate to wait because of that.
@davidho I think it would be better and more clear if you said, "CDR is a scam the oil companies made up out of nothing, as part of their campaign to trick people. It's not real. If someone touts this, you know they're evil. It's the "low-tar cigarettes" of the 21st century."
@davidho But most (all?) CDR methods require a lot of energy, so that nuance is an important one.
@davidho An odd hill to die on. You claim some people want both yet you want to wait before doing the one thing.
I don't think CDR is more than a dumb tax because it will create more CO2 to generate the energy required to sequester CO2 that was released to gain the original energy, in almost all settings. Straight out of a flue or industrial process perhaps possible to break even and waste all the money. Instead plant trees everywhere and all the time and they will CDR for you using sunlight and improve the soil for free.
What is the reason that the best CDR is not at the top of the list always and every time. Why does it generate 10'000'000 plastic straws worth of emissions to fly a private jet for 1 hour yet they still go to climate conferences in PERSON. This is a global scam of such proportions that until the reality sinks home it seems too big to be a joke yet humanity is being played in the worst possible way.
Burning scarce chemical feedstock is silly but burning more to un-burn it is the height of stupidity.
Mother Nature: Game over!
@davidho
It's simple.
Every carbon capture method requires energy. Even if you use nothing but solar energy for it, until everything we need energy for is using 100% green energy, that energy would be better used to replace fossil fuels.
Why? Because carbon capture is stuffing carbon back into the ground. Burning fossil fuel is taking carbon out of the ground. If you can do that without energy loss, you basically invented a perpetual motion machine. Which is impossible.
@davidho preach! Agreed