this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2023
1387 points (96.4% liked)

solarpunk memes

2943 readers
368 users here now

For when you need a laugh!

The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!

But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.

Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.

Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines

Have fun!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sturlabragason 37 points 11 months ago (3 children)

I'm not sure that we should write it off completely...

There's a thing in Iceland that binds CO2 underground.

It's pretty cool: https://www.carbfix.com/

Here's the science behind it https://www.carbfix.com/scientific-papers

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/395af5db-c2fb-43c0-8af1-2db7af10f37a.png

[–] [email protected] 33 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Hey, I think the tech has some promise, but my opinion is this: basing our goals and pledges to solve the climate crisis on technology that hasn't yet proven itself is putting the cart before the horse.

We need to set the objective to stop the increase of emissions, and then we can also try out sucking carbon emissions out as we do that to help accelerate our fix to the climate problem.

Whether the tech works or not, fossil fuel companies as I see it, are just using it as a delay tactic to the world reducing its dependence on their business: by making the central issue something that will help, but not ultimately solve the problem.

[–] sturlabragason 15 points 11 months ago
[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago

The tech is in its kidsshoes, all this pushing for new technologies is almost like a hidden excuse for.continouing their fossil bullshit.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

yeah, that's legit, not the coal power plant nonsense. at this point I'd consider carbfix et al. to be at the R&D stage.

[–] Sorgan71 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It would be better if they put that money into renewable energy.

[–] sturlabragason 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Why not both? Reduce on all fronts.

[–] Sorgan71 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Because carbon capture will never reduce carbon as much as competing with non-renewable energy companies

[–] sturlabragason 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Sorgan71 0 points 11 months ago

But using renewable energy will reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere more than carbon capture, just not directly.