• CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    6 days ago

    The argument is that there exist some use cases where we do not have a viable low carbon energy source yet (things like heavy farming equipment or aircraft), and one can effectively counteract the emissions of these things until we do develop one. Or alternatively, by the time that we eliminate all the high carbon energy, the heating effect already present may be well beyond what we desire the climate to be like, and returning it to a prior state would require not just not emitting carbon, but removing some of what is already there.

    • AnyOldName3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      6 days ago

      It does also get pushed by organisations that profit from fossil fuels as an excuse to never need to decarbonise as they can hypothetically just capture it all again later, which is dumb and impractical for a variety of reasons, including the one alluded to above. Some kind of Carbon sink will need to be part of the long-term solution, but the groups pushing most strongly want it to be the whole solution and have someone else pay for it so they can keep doing the same things as caused the problem in the first place.

    • iii@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      viable low carbon energy source yet

      Not limited to energy sources either: steel production requires carbon as part of the alloy.

      In the production of cement, calciumcarbonate gets heated and emits co2.

      Both of these products can not be made without the emission of co2, even when using 100% solar and wind energy