[pretendgeneer]

Being against Carbon Capture and geo-engineering is just following the science.

Carbon capture has constantly been shown to just not work at any scale. and geo-engineering causes so many extra problems and will absolutely lead to termination shock at some point.

[legitster]

> geo-engineering causes so many extra problems and will absolutely lead to termination shock at some point.

This doesn't sound like a terribly scientific assessment.

Climate change is either an environmental disaster and geoengineering would be a huge risk - or climate change is an existential threat to humanity in which case we have nothing to lose. Which is it?

[rcMgD2BwE72F]

>existential threat to humanity in which case we have nothing to lose

Being under threat doesn't justify making things worst. I know I'll die some day but that's not a reason to be suicidal.

[pretendgeneer]

Climate change can be an existential threat to humanity and Geo-Engineering can make it worse at the same time.

[brutusborn]

Carbon capture is being successfully used all around the world. It’s in its infancy, but so were solar panels decades ago, and we didn’t give up on them.

We don’t have enough data on geoengineering to judge yet, there is no real science to follow.

Also I don’t understand this attitude of rejecting potential solutions outright. Science doesn’t “prove” things, we can’t ‘follow’ it due to the problem of induction. So we should stay open minded and support all potential solutions, not just those we like best.

[stubish]

The closest we have are emissions reductions on power generation and other highly polluting facilities. Carbon capture of CO2 from the atmosphere is not being used successfully, anywhere. There are plenty of feel good articles about trials and test sites and experimental facilities, none of which are within multiple orders of magnitude of being capable of scaled out to the amounts needed. They all require such vast amounts of electricity that it would be better using that electricity to not emit the carbon in the first place. There are no technologies on the horizon that could even put a dent in our current yearly emissions, let alone clean up past excess. Yet it is used time and time again to sell carbon neutral plans and policies to the public, which will never reach their targets.

[bertil]

> Carbon capture is being successfully used all around the world.

[Citation needed]

[barbazoo]

Without a massive amount of renewable energy we won’t be able use CCS at scale.

[barbazoo]

https://messaging-custom-newsletters.nytimes.com/dynamic/ren...

The rich love using future carbon capture to justify present day inaction.

[wahnfrieden]

Ideologues won’t accept it because they are waiting for a technology solution and these are the best they’ve seen offered so far. Their optimism is predicated on market driven technology solutions saving us quickly enough. Negativity toward their favorite technology solutions is interpreted as pessimism toward their ideology.

[downWidOutaFite]

Trying to capture carbon out of the air makes zero sense besides as anti climate change propaganda. Why wouldn't you capture the carbon at the source of the emission where it is much more concentrated? I'll tell you why, because then the cost is born by the emitter but they'd rather shift that cost onto society as a whole.

[madsbuch]

can you make a scientific argument that carbon capture and geo engineering will not work at scale.

if not, then you are just littering with words.

[stubish]

It takes orders of magnitude more power to capture the carbon from the atmosphere than was gained putting it there in the first place.

It requires sucking in and processing inconceivable quantities of air requiring inconceivable amounts of land for the facilities, because the carbon we need to capture has been released and distributed into the earths atmosphere.

The engineering required to scale out any existing or envisioned technology to put a meaningful dent just on our yearly emissions is more than simply replacing the worlds energy production with zero emissions generation and storage.

[hnbad]

Carbon capture technologies produce more carbon emissions than they can capture if you account for the resource use for production and construction. Even when they do slightly better than breaking even the margin is so low that scaling it up is not a meaningful contribution relative to the amount of emissions we would need to counteract. This is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

Geo engineering to the degree necessary to revert climate change is bad sci-fi, not science, no matter what billionaires selling personal EVs are telling you.

On the other hand we know that we are seeing an immense problem of overproduction which is incentivized by the economic system and impossible to tackle by blaming consumers for bad choices and asking the industry nicely to reduce waste or letting them get away with greenwashing by planting trees and raising honey bees. We could change that but it would require significant market intervention, which we (most Western nations at least) have been ideologically opposed to for decades.

[newsclues]

You understand “following the science” arguments are stupid right?

[was_a_dev]

It isn't if you aren't a scientist in that field. As you're not qualified to do otherwise.

As a physicist in quantum sensing. I follow the science (opinion) of climate scientists as they're the experts of that field. And that opinion is constantly evolving, but I follow that.

Anything else is just being an armchair scientist.

[codetrotter]

No. Why?