You are agreeing with my points here. My entire argument has been that shifting the onus to consumers for emissions is ridiculous. I have said multiple times that the manufacturing/energy production sectors are where we need to focus efforts rather than blaming inconsequential emitters like the consumers/ the FIA.
Furthermore, injection capture and other methods remain unproven for long periods - we don’t want a solution that blows up 200 years from now.
The problem with CC is not that it is unstable. It is that the current amount of capture is not sufficient for how much we emit.
You do you, but your sophistry about pets and killing all humans is unfounded and ridiculous. Akin to your premise.
It would be sophistic if you didn’t try to argue that anything that emits greenhouse gasses “needs to go.” I am simply pointing out how that logic is fundamentally flawed.
The realistic solution to all of this is a combination of everything. Transitioning away for fossil fuels where possible. Carbon capture can aid in sectors where that is infeasible. Offsets through companies like Wren have been proven to reduce emissions. (Yes, there are plenty of offset/credit programs that are not helpful, but that is a regulatory issue.) Increased public transportation options, more mixed use zoning, and more stringent manufacturing regulations, can also help. Change NEEDS to happen at a higher level before anything else can meaningfullly affect our course. And there a many intermediate steps we need to take before we can simply stop using fossil fuels altogether.
holy 5 months later batman…
It will always be more expensive to remove carbon from the atmosphere than to simply stop burning the fuels we have adequate replacements for.
No one is suggesting we’ll have electric jets and shipping; but even industrial processes like steel foundries can go electric. Concrete too.
eliminating every producer of emissions objectively eliminates trillions in capture.
Furthermore, injection capture and other methods remain unproven for long periods - we don’t want a solution that blows up 200 years from now.
You do you, but your sophistry about pets and killing all humans is unfounded and ridiculous. Akin to your premise.
I saw that I never posted a draft, lol.
Irrelevant, if companies and governments are willing/required to pay for it, then the cost does not matter. Also, pretending like the entire world can just not use fossil fuels is wishful thinking at best. If you think rationally for even a second, you would realize that is a nearly impossible task. Carbon capture will be one of many essential ways to offset emissions in areas where conversion to electric is infeasible
You are agreeing with my points here. My entire argument has been that shifting the onus to consumers for emissions is ridiculous. I have said multiple times that the manufacturing/energy production sectors are where we need to focus efforts rather than blaming inconsequential emitters like the consumers/ the FIA.
The problem with CC is not that it is unstable. It is that the current amount of capture is not sufficient for how much we emit.
It would be sophistic if you didn’t try to argue that anything that emits greenhouse gasses “needs to go.” I am simply pointing out how that logic is fundamentally flawed.
The realistic solution to all of this is a combination of everything. Transitioning away for fossil fuels where possible. Carbon capture can aid in sectors where that is infeasible. Offsets through companies like Wren have been proven to reduce emissions. (Yes, there are plenty of offset/credit programs that are not helpful, but that is a regulatory issue.) Increased public transportation options, more mixed use zoning, and more stringent manufacturing regulations, can also help. Change NEEDS to happen at a higher level before anything else can meaningfullly affect our course. And there a many intermediate steps we need to take before we can simply stop using fossil fuels altogether.