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 [M] to c/climate@slrpnk.net
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 16 points 3 years ago (2 children)

US will do literally anything other than reducing fossil fuel dependence

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    This should not be an alternative to reducing fossil but it could help mitigate the effects of climate change we have already signed up for. I hope we continue to invest in this technology.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] [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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
    • [–] 6 points 3 years ago

    The article is mostly skeptical and most agree carbon capture is extremely inefficient compared to avoiding burning fossil fuels in the first place, which I agree with. But I also think in a broad strategy to leverage as many sectors and technologies as possible to fight climate change, using $1b from a $400b bill is not necessarily a bad thing, if only to diversify our approach or keep the potential alive for a breakthrough.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 4 points 3 years ago

    Necessary

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •