US will do literally anything other than reducing fossil fuel dependence
this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
38 points (95.2% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5194 readers
1092 users here now
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.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The funding was part of a law which mostly spends money on reducing fossil fuel dependence, and a little bit on carbon capture.
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.
The US is the most energy wasteful society ever seen, with a historic co2 foodprint putting others to shame. It's time for the US to do it's duty.
“vacuum greenhouse gases from the sky” … “many scientists are skeptical of the technology”
well … when you phrase it like that, I wonder why?
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.
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.
Mitigating ongoing emissions is cheaper than removing well mixed past emissions.
Considering it took eons to get the carbon into solid form from the last time it was in the atmosphere, that makes sense.
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.
Necessary