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

    If you’re on the brink of death, yes. If you can take another round, better to take out more enemies first.

    But that’s not the way our situation works. Until the whole grid is green, carbon scrubbers just give corporations a way to virtue signal without having to make changes to their supply line, and actually do more harm than good. Because the power it takes to run them puts out more carbon than they collect.

    • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      We’re on the brink of death right now so I will support people trying to start CO2 sequestration even while coal plants in other countries no one can stop are still running, please and thank you.

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

        Does your country run on green energy? If so, cool. Go for it.

        If not, it’s better to switch from existing fossil fuel plants to green energy. Running a carbon scrubber on fossil fuels puts out more carbon than it saves. It’s like casting heals from HP when they cost more than they heal. There might be a time for that, but it’s not during combat.

        Even if the scrubber itself is on green energy, if the whole grid isn’t green, the energy it’s using could have gone to replace fossil fuel consumption, so it’s the same cost.

        If you want to sequester CO2 without putting out more than you take, plant trees.

        We are not on the brink of death. We may be on the brink of the point of no return (or past it depending who you ask,) but that’s not immediate death. The world isn’t going to die of heat in the next 10 years. There’s no need to rush to something that sounds good but does more harm.