The article puts it up as a question about whether this practice is worthwhile since the only logical solution to climate change is to de-carbonize. Personally I think that question isn’t very nuanced, certainly de-carbonizing 100’a of tons from the atmosphere from just this one plant is a small net positive. Can’t let it be an excuse to keep rolling coal in your F750’a but I’m still in favor of sucking as much carbon out of the air as we can.

  • Quatity_Control@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    To prevent exceeding the 1.5 celsius increase, we need to triple the current uptake of renewables. I can extinguish a candle and say its carbon negative, however it’s not really going to help. We can look at other carbon reducing technology after the immediate requirement for renewable installations. I’m all for that, but right now, it’s just taking money time and resources away from renewables when we can’t afford any delay.

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s not taking anything away from renewables. The renewable investment market is blowing the fuck up.

      There’s investment money all over the place any sort of renewable/sustainable/green projects. There is far more investment interest than there are companies ready to deliver on any sort of product, and we absolutely will need 2nd+ gen carbon capture.

      There is no way to paint this as a bad thing.

      • Quatity_Control@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’d agree with you if we were already producing enough renewables. Since we need to triple the current renewable market just to hit 1.5, I don’t agree with resources going elsewhere until we are on track there.