Environment & Energy

Think. Again.

(22,456 posts)

8. And that would be GREAT!...

Fri Aug 11, 2023, 07:55 PM

Aug 2023

...absorbing the higher concentrations of CO2 near it's source would be a very effective use of this tech.

What I was referring to though, is how CO2 emitters are hoping they will be allowed to continue with their standard operations and emissions if they install a system at the emission source.

That sounds okay at first, but directly capturing CO2 at the source is not only very undependable (for reasons I admit I don't know enough about, but I think they can't absorb 100% or something), but allowing emitters to do that would also prolong the use of fossil fuels which in turn would weaken and delay our much needed full transition AWAY from fossil fuels.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

12 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Biden-Harris Administration Announces Up To $1.2 Billion For Nation's First Direct Air Capture Demo... [View all] OKIsItJustMe Aug 2023 OP

Dang, what if this works flamingdem Aug 2023 #1

So, if you check the release, there are two pilot project here OKIsItJustMe Aug 2023 #2

Thank you flamingdem Aug 2023 #5

Bravo Joe! Think. Again. Aug 2023 #3

Well... it's not magic. OKIsItJustMe Aug 2023 #7

And that would be GREAT!... Think. Again. Aug 2023 #8

You could magnify its impact by making oil companies stop burning or releasing methane. Hermit-The-Prog Aug 2023 #4

Well, yes, naturally, cutting emissions is vitally important it's just not sufficient OKIsItJustMe Aug 2023 #6

yes we do.. Think. Again. Aug 2023 #9

I am finding it hard to find-- Lulu KC Aug 2023 #10

The most cost-effective approach orthoclad Aug 2023 #11

A little background BlueIn_W_Pa Aug 2023 #12