We need financial incentives (like carbon tax or carbon credits) to make carbon neutral processes more attractive and really to put a price on the damage CO₂ emissions create.
The carbon capture technology required so much energy that it had its own gas power plant. The captured CO₂ was used to extract oil from oil fields. With falling oil prices, this was not economical.
We will eventually need direct carbon capture technology to stabilize our climate but hoping that it will solve the climate crisis is just wishful thinking.
Now their website says they have 17 plants. I doubt they will reach their goal in the next 4 years. And even then this would only be 1% of of the emissions. I don't think there are 99 more such projects.
There is little direct financial incentive in carbon capture technology. The US's only carbon capture plant recently closed. https://earther.gizmodo.com/the-only-carbon-capture-plant-in-the-u-s-just-closed-1846177778
One initiative I found that does direct capture from the atmosphere is Climeworks. In 2017 it stated that want to capture 1% of global CO₂ emission by 2025. Sounds great, right?
But to do so, they said they need to build 250,000 similar plants as they did then. https://www.climatecentral.org/news/first-commercial-co2-capture-plant-live-21494
CO₂ is trace element, i.e., its ratio in the atmosphere is very small, measured in parts per million (ppm). The current level is a bit above 400 ppm. That makes capturing it very hard.
Hence, most current carbon capture technology solves an easier problem: Remove as much CO₂ as possible from direct emissions (e.g., coal plants). Even these can only reduce the emissions, not eliminate it.
Carbon capture technology will not save us from the climate crisis.
There seem to be people who hope that instead of reducing CO₂ emissions, we can just build carbon capture plants. There are two problems with this: The technology is not developed far enough and the financial incentive is lacking.
Why not talk with and about all the underrepresented groups? Where is the long portrait of a BLM organizer or sympathizer? I am sure that there are far more interesting and important stories here than what we are seeing.
If you think you need to cover these far right groups because they are part of society, then you should ask yourself are the other parts of society really covered sufficiently or proportionally? 3/3
Please, dear journalists, stop giving these people a platform. You are enabling them and you continue to normalize their racism, their destruction of democracy, and their crazy conspiracy myths.
There are plenty of other groups that should be covered and are underrepresented. Why not talk more about the people who are trying to fight voter suppression or about the different environmental movements addressing climate change? 2/3
I just heard a journalist getting asked what they are looking forward to to do once the pandemic is under control, that they want to talk to the people in the US who are still denying the existence of Covid-19 and who believe the election was stolen.
The journalist wants to understand this. I guess it is the fascination of the absurd. But this type of coverage has given this group a disproportionate amount of attention making them seem bigger than they are. 1/3
„Börse vor acht“ grade mehrere Minuten kostenlose Werbung für Lufthansa und Langstreckenflüge ☹️
Zeit für #KlimaVorAcht!
Wie übrigens Vogelseite darauf reagierte, nachdem sich massiv rechte Accounts auf meinen Tweet eingeschossen haben:
Software developer, loving the outdoors, food and baking bread.
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!