▲ 39 ▼ U.S. to Fund a $1.2 Billion Effort to Vacuum Greenhouse Gases From the Sky | Many scientists are skeptical of the technology, and environmentalists have criticized the approach. (www.nytimes.com) submitted 3 years ago by silence7@slrpnk.net [M] to c/climate@slrpnk.net 11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] cerement@slrpnk.net 11 points 3 years ago (1 child) “vacuum greenhouse gases from the sky” … “many scientists are skeptical of the technology” well … when you phrase it like that, I wonder why? permalink fedilink source hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] silence7@slrpnk.net [S] 3 points 3 years ago (2 children) Basically: you can do it, but for almost all applications, it's a lot cheaper to avoid burning fossil fuels than it is to remove CO2 from the atmosphere afterwards. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] schroedingershat@lemmy.world 4 points 3 years ago (1 child) The problem is there's a few hundred billion tonnes or so that needs removing and it can't go from 0 to billions of tonnes per year overnight, but as soon as you start doing it publicly propagandists will flock to it and use it to delay more effective and pressing action. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] vanderstilt@lemmy.world 5 points 3 years ago Mitigating ongoing emissions is cheaper than removing well mixed past emissions. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Kittenstix@beehaw.org 1 point 3 years ago Considering it took eons to get the carbon into solid form from the last time it was in the atmosphere, that makes sense. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] silence7@slrpnk.net [S] 3 points 3 years ago (2 children) Basically: you can do it, but for almost all applications, it's a lot cheaper to avoid burning fossil fuels than it is to remove CO2 from the atmosphere afterwards. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] schroedingershat@lemmy.world 4 points 3 years ago (1 child) The problem is there's a few hundred billion tonnes or so that needs removing and it can't go from 0 to billions of tonnes per year overnight, but as soon as you start doing it publicly propagandists will flock to it and use it to delay more effective and pressing action. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] vanderstilt@lemmy.world 5 points 3 years ago Mitigating ongoing emissions is cheaper than removing well mixed past emissions. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Kittenstix@beehaw.org 1 point 3 years ago Considering it took eons to get the carbon into solid form from the last time it was in the atmosphere, that makes sense. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] schroedingershat@lemmy.world 4 points 3 years ago (1 child) The problem is there's a few hundred billion tonnes or so that needs removing and it can't go from 0 to billions of tonnes per year overnight, but as soon as you start doing it publicly propagandists will flock to it and use it to delay more effective and pressing action. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] vanderstilt@lemmy.world 5 points 3 years ago Mitigating ongoing emissions is cheaper than removing well mixed past emissions. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] vanderstilt@lemmy.world 5 points 3 years ago Mitigating ongoing emissions is cheaper than removing well mixed past emissions. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Kittenstix@beehaw.org 1 point 3 years ago Considering it took eons to get the carbon into solid form from the last time it was in the atmosphere, that makes sense. permalink fedilink source parent