Uh, no shit? We can’t remove more carbon than we’re putting out. Was that seriously the plan? What the fuck.
It’s technically doable — just a lot more expensive than not burning fossil fuels in the first place. So nobody is doing it at any kind of meaningful scale, and we get what are basically exercises in doing very tiny amounts in order to create social permission to keep on extracting and burning.
I think the word you’re looking for is “theoretically,” not “technically.”
Not really. There are a handful of pilot-scale examples operating. So we know it’s technically doable.
This is fossil fuel industry propaganda.
NO carbon capture tech exists, or is on the foreseeable horizon, that is economically feasible.
What did you think? The other option is upending the power and economic structures of capitalism. That was never going to happen. They’ll literally let the world end before that.
“They” are outnumbered. It’s time to stop asking.
Youre preaching to the choir. Even just a general strike would put a boot on their necks.
But we’re so conditioned to relying on the system that every single time I bring it up, everyone’s like, “…well we need our jobs.” Or something else to immediately write off a strike.
It could easily be over in a matter of weeks. Buy up enough food for a few weeks and rely on enough community support. Anarchist groups around the world would come out to support and lend a huge hand. It could be done.
Directly removing carbon from the atmosphere is a growing industry called “carbon capture.” Of course, the fact that it’s structured as an industry is not ideal.
It’s important to note that the rates we humans tend to build things is far from linear. A path to the high number listed in the article of 5.5 BT of CDR might like look like 1BT in 2030, 2BT in 2040, 4BT in 2045, and 5.5BT in 2050
