It's really not even a compliment. We could not cover even a thousandth of Texas in ~30 feet of carbon per year.
That would only account for ~10% of global emissions.
It's not really worth considering solutions that are going to maybe move the needle by 0.001%. Honestly, hope seems like a better strategy and less a waste of time than that.
If you really want to discuss it - you should preface very discussion with - "This isn't going to make the slightest difference at all in the grand scheme of things, but hear me out anyway..."
Carbon capture is propaganda from the fossil fuel industry to pretend like there is any viable alternative from phasing out fossil fuels almost entirely.
The fossil fuel industry has already won as much as they could - much to the younger generations detriment.
Economics alone should phase out ~60% of fossil fuel usage by 2050. There is nothing they can do to change that at this point.
Unfortunately, depending on the curve - the planet could get way hotter by then.
But, I'm also optimistic that a hotter planet is not going to spell disaster like most people think.
> We could not cover even 1/1000th of the US in ~30 feet of carbon per year.
We wouldn't ... ?
Billions of gallons of crude oil are removed from the earth every year, millions upon millions of tons of stone are mined from the earth every year.
I'm misunderstanding how "covering Texas" is a meaningful measure in terms of carbon capture.
> It's not really worth considering solutions that are going to maybe move the needle by 0.001%
I'm unsure how you've come to this metric or conclusion honestly.
> Carbon capture is propaganda from the fossil fuel industry to pretend....
The oil industry seems to be interested in pivoting to CCS because it is dependent on pipelines and drilling infrastructure, which is comfortably inside their position at global-scale. The fact that they caused a large portion of the problem is tangential - practically speaking. Blame who you will, we have a problem and there is an army of geological engineers and pipeline experts, etc etc with decades of experience to draw from.
> The fossil fuel industry has already won as much as they could
This is myopic and honestly childish
> But, I'm also optimistic that a hotter planet is not going to spell disaster like most people think.
> It's not really worth considering solutions that are going to maybe move the needle by 0.001%.
Here's what the IPCC said [0]:
> “The technical geological CO2 storage capacity is estimated to be on the order of 1000 gigatonnes of CO2, which is more than the CO2 storage requirements through 2100 to limit global warming to 1.5°C, although the regional availability of geological storage could be a limiting factor.” – SPM, p. 37
That would only account for ~10% of global emissions.
It's not really worth considering solutions that are going to maybe move the needle by 0.001%. Honestly, hope seems like a better strategy and less a waste of time than that.
If you really want to discuss it - you should preface very discussion with - "This isn't going to make the slightest difference at all in the grand scheme of things, but hear me out anyway..."
Carbon capture is propaganda from the fossil fuel industry to pretend like there is any viable alternative from phasing out fossil fuels almost entirely.
The fossil fuel industry has already won as much as they could - much to the younger generations detriment.
Economics alone should phase out ~60% of fossil fuel usage by 2050. There is nothing they can do to change that at this point.
Unfortunately, depending on the curve - the planet could get way hotter by then.
But, I'm also optimistic that a hotter planet is not going to spell disaster like most people think.