this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2024
151 points (96.9% liked)

Technology

59750 readers
2197 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
151
How Much Energy Would It Take to Pull Carbon Dioxide out of the Air? (www.wired.com)
submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
72 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] aBundleOfFerrets 23 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Carbon capture makes much more sense directly on smokestacks and other industry waste outputs, but then how do businesses make taxpayers fund it?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Idk, I just feel like it’s 1. A cop out. We need to reduce emissions and not put our eggs in one basket. And 2. In its infancy. The tech isn’t efficient enough yet to be rolled out imo

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I think we should pursue it for the future, but it shouldn't be taking funding that could be used for more immediate solutions or used as a distraction / delay tactic (although of course it will).

[–] sugar_in_your_tea 1 points 5 months ago

I disagree. I think we should:

  1. Pilot it to prove the cost
  2. Charge a carbon tax based loosely on that number and (high) estimates for the amount of carbon emitted
  3. Return the carbon tax to the public as a credit

This keeps the tax revenue neutral (i.e. theoretically no hit to GDP) while encouraging companies to find cheaper ways to reduce carbon emissions or capture carbon to offset emissions.

If it's ineffective at reducing emissions, then start spending a portion of it to remove carbon.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

Preventing additional carbon emissions doesn't decrease what's already in the atmosphere. We would need some form of carbon capture even if we stopped all emissions today.