The incoming Trump administration will have a say in whether federally backed direct air capture projects in Louisiana move forward

  • nous@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    Worst then that, it is an excuse to continue or increase emissions and distract people from real solutions. We need to reduce emissions first. It might be valuable someday once the low hanging fruit has been dealt with.

  • hotelbravo722@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    I would say its a yes and. Yes it costs a lot of money and it’s not as efficient as trees long term. But Trees + these machines + no longer burning and releasing CO2 at the current rate + land rewilding = a chance at survival.

  • ComradeSharkfucker@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Its a waste of valuable resources that could be used on known, more efficient ways of reducing emissions. Carbon capture isn’t here to save us, it is here to save oil and gas

  • Steve@communick.news
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    It’s not a single bullet solution. There is no single bullet solution.
    It is one bullet, in a hail of bullets fired at the problem. They’ll all be needed.

  • thejevans@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    It will be necessary once we’ve done all the much more effective and cheaper stuff. For now, it’s important to make it better for when we need to focus on it. That said, anything more than academic at this point is probably designed to allow emitters to keep emitting longer.