I don’t think they should get $1B investment when we’re supposed to reduce emissions by 100% in 3 decades, which in a simple calculus means 30% in a decade.
Am I right to think that those reports were from scientists who study sequestration? If so, the receiving end of the fundings will, of course, demand “more studies”.
We’re probably better off accepting the worst case scenario and ban fuel.
The “greedy scientists just want more money for studies” angle makes me an little uncomfortable since it is the same one used by the side arguing we shouldn’t be spending any money on green energy.
The fact that the fossil fuels industry supports this research is a way better argument, IMHO. Also, we do have these great carbon sequestration machines already. They are called trees.
No, I’m acting pointing out that OP cited the ones I specifically asked not to.
My request was to cite statements from the wider community, not the scientists who study carbon capture themselves. With the green energy you can find those easily from basically any era because it has clearly been a strong option to fight the climate change.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !politics@beehaw.org
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it’s a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
I don’t think they should get $1B investment when we’re supposed to reduce emissions by 100% in 3 decades, which in a simple calculus means 30% in a decade.
Am I right to think that those reports were from scientists who study sequestration? If so, the receiving end of the fundings will, of course, demand “more studies”.
We’re probably better off accepting the worst case scenario and ban fuel.
The “greedy scientists just want more money for studies” angle makes me an little uncomfortable since it is the same one used by the side arguing we shouldn’t be spending any money on green energy.
The fact that the fossil fuels industry supports this research is a way better argument, IMHO. Also, we do have these great carbon sequestration machines already. They are called trees.
No, I’m acting pointing out that OP cited the ones I specifically asked not to.
My request was to cite statements from the wider community, not the scientists who study carbon capture themselves. With the green energy you can find those easily from basically any era because it has clearly been a strong option to fight the climate change.