We definitely shouldn't let corporations to use carbon capture to greenwash themselves but doesn't mean we should stop any research in carbon capture.
The problem is we set a target of "net zero" by <in 2 decades>. So naturally companies will do it the cheapest way that requires the least changes to their business.
We don't need "net zero" we need "as closest to total zero as possible".
If the carbon is properly sequestered after capture, and the energy use is accounted for in emissions, wouldn't net zero be just as good as zero? It's almost always going to be way more expensive to take the carbon back out of the atmosphere than to not emit it in the first place, so I'd think you'd get mostly the same effect.
Again, has this not been bs on repeat for decades now?
Don't worry about our pollution, look at this thing we made that makes the mess we made okay. It'll work this time, really
We need to invent carbon capture!
Meanwhile: trees
Trees doesn't work either, they die and release all that carbon back into the atmosphere
The goal is to harvest them to use them in construction work. A house frame can stay as is for over a hundred years or more, enough to regrow the trees harvested twice or more. We just need to make the harvesting process less energy intensive...
Trees do work though...
- Buy land that is not forested
- Plant trees
- Is forest and love trees replace dead trees
- Wow look consumed carbon
Carbon capture as a solution where you use power to filter out CO2 from the atmosphere is ONLY a viable strategy if we can make 100% carbon free power.
Until then you'd use 100 CO2 generating power to (after all losees) capture 30 CO2, it's dumb. If you use a solar powered system instead, you still are losing as now someone else that could have used your solar power is using 100 CO2 while you pull only 30 out...
Once everything runs on CO2 free power, THEN it makes sense to start carbon capture, until then it's only playfully pretending while making the situation actively worse.
