Comment

Comment by tsimionescu

I disagree. There are limited resources to spend on this issue, physically, and politically, and economically. Every bit of carbon capture technology that you build is taking up resources that would be infinitely better spent on carbon emission reductions: more efficient devices, more robust consumer products that can be replaced once a decade or less, more local production to reduce long-distance transportation, PR campaigns against over consumption, etc.

And again, carbon capture is simply not a viable technology. It's almost like using a shovel to take water from a leaking pipe and move it to a nearby puddle: lots of effort for little gain, and there's no guarantee that the puddle won't connect back to the leak.

Not to mention, most of those who peddle it are outright dishonest. Most have 0 plans for storage, and instead plan to "re-use the captured carbon", for example to grow plants mute efficiently in green houses, which is to say, to release it back at a slightly lower rate.

And finally, even if by some magic the effort was somewhat successful, and we built up huge deposits of sequestered carbon, the most likely next step is for some idiot politician to start advocating for burning it as soon as the trend became slightly positive.

parent tsimionescu 3 years ago

Discussion

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton