Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
That’s like saying “failed alfalfa harvest proves organic farming won’t work”.
How does one leak prove the entire scheme is flawed?
This isn't just one leak, this is a leak that got so bad the EPA got involved.
Again, how does one failed trial invalidate the entire scheme?
Because this "one trial" was the literal best-case scenario, and it still sprung a leak that would cost more to fix than they could gain by banking carbon sequestration credits.
All I’m hearing is the first experiment failed, and y’all would rather give up than fix it.
Yeah, obviously I'd much rather that R&D budgets got spent on things that might actually make a difference rather than new ways of kicking the can down the road for future generations to deal with.
You're weirdly defensive about this idea. What's up with that? Daddy got some investments in the fossil fuel industry?
The whole article is weirdly dismissive of new technology.
It's not new technology, for one. We've been using injection wells like landfills since the 1930's because it's cheaper than treating and disposing of wastewater safely.
It's more like saying "the Heisenberg exploded, hydrogen blimps won't work"
The Heisenberg exploded because of ruptured bladders and structural cables snapping, among other things. Hydrogen blimps could work - technologically they're still very feasible
But they're too risky to half ass, and their biggest proponents have shown themselves to be incompetent in the face of the engineering challenges involved
It's not just shit technology - it's about execution. If no one can demonstrate good execution, we have nothing. Better ideas have been killed for less... This whole concept is riddled with unsolved problems - it's not feasible with the players on the board
This is too important to fuck around.
Heisenberg exploded? The scientist or the one from Breaking Bad?
Yeah remember when he met Tuco that one time and used exploding meth?
I think you meant the Hindenburg there.
It’s uncertain
It's more about the how and why.
How: CCS pumps liquefied or pressurized gas into an exhausted oil or saline reservoir. These reservoirs didn't hold pressurized gas before, so it's difficult (if not impossible) to prove they won't leak. In the Decatur case, about 8 kilotons of CO2 and saltwater either found or created a crack in the reservoir, exactly as critics predicted. Locals are worried about groundwater contamination.
Why: CCS is largely unregulated in the US, and the companies interested in it are ones with awful environmental track records -- ADM is no exception there. To claim the 45Q tax credit, they only need to store the CO2 for 3 years. Why would they care about preventing leaks if they already got their payout? Doing shoddy work is in their best interest.
Does this event prove that underground CCS is literally impossible? Of course not. But feasibility isn't a pass/fail test, it's judged by factors like cost and risk. This event proves the approach isn't foolproof and the companies aren't trustworthy. So it's high time we stop acting like they are.