• silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      The funding was part of a law which mostly spends money on reducing fossil fuel dependence, and a little bit on carbon capture.

    • Conyak@lemmy.tf
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This should not be an alternative to reducing fossil but it could help mitigate the effects of climate change we have already signed up for. I hope we continue to invest in this technology.

      • nodiratime@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The US is the most energy wasteful society ever seen, with a historic co2 foodprint putting others to shame. It’s time for the US to do it’s duty.

  • cerement@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    “vacuum greenhouse gases from the sky” … “many scientists are skeptical of the technology”

    well … when you phrase it like that, I wonder why?

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Basically: you can do it, but for almost all applications, it’s a lot cheaper to avoid burning fossil fuels than it is to remove CO2 from the atmosphere afterwards.

      • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The problem is there’s a few hundred billion tonnes or so that needs removing and it can’t go from 0 to billions of tonnes per year overnight, but as soon as you start doing it publicly propagandists will flock to it and use it to delay more effective and pressing action.

      • Kittenstix@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Considering it took eons to get the carbon into solid form from the last time it was in the atmosphere, that makes sense.

  • wrath-sedan@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    The article is mostly skeptical and most agree carbon capture is extremely inefficient compared to avoiding burning fossil fuels in the first place, which I agree with. But I also think in a broad strategy to leverage as many sectors and technologies as possible to fight climate change, using $1b from a $400b bill is not necessarily a bad thing, if only to diversify our approach or keep the potential alive for a breakthrough.