News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
There may eventually be some carbon capture technologies that can help but, the TL;DR, is that it is always more expensive to capture carbon than not release it in the future.
I have no objection to researching carbon capture and sequestration but it is far too late for that to be a focus of attention.
We must reduce. And while carbon capture may end up being a powerful tool there are a lot of dishonest actors touting it as a cure all right now to dodge any accountability for ruining the environment.
I completely understand. On a personal level I worked for years on lobbying to get a carbon fee and dividend system passed at state and federal levels because I felt that taxing companies for their carbon emissions was a smart and tangible way of dealing with the problem. As I’ve grown cynical with CF&D never catching on politically, I sniffed out different technocratic solutions. I agree the companies researching and implementing CCS are the same oil companies that got us into this mess so how much can we take from their advocacy with CCS as being a good thing? As a professional geologist I have a love-hate relationship with O&G industry but they are so powerful I don’t know how to work against them but instead with them (I don’t work for an oil company, I work in publicly funded CCS research)
Really, we need both. If we don't capture, we're fucked even if we reduce.
There is however a world where we capture so much, we can pump out as much as we want, and sadly it sounds more easy to achieve in the current hypercapitalistic environment.
And if we get rid of the hypercapitalism this conversation is moot anyway.
Sorry I just want to reiterate something.
It will never be efficient to capture carbon when measured against not polluting it in the first place.
The math simply doesn't math - carbon capture at best will be an emergency action where we divert energy from other needs to desperately try and lower CO2 - we'll never be able to not care about emissions because we can just capture it.
Right now the carbon is captured in an extremely efficient dense manner - we're expending energy to dig it up, to harness that energy... it will never make sense to use the energy from that process to recapture the emissions.
It only makes sense to look at carbon capture if we have an entirely green grid and loads of excess energy to throw around. That is a highly unlikely scenario.
What's interesting about the facility in the article is that it's not capturing carbon from fossil fuels: it's capturing CO2 generated from the fermentation of ethanol. That means the CO2 came from plants (corn), which is known as biogenic CO2. If low carbon electricity is used to capture biogenic CO2, the net result is a lowering of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. That's in addition to the energy content of the ethanol, which could displace fossil fuels.
Carbon capture isn't the sole solution, but could be part of it.