Heavy dependence on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) to reach net zero targets around 2050 would be “hugely economically damaging”, costing at least $30 trillion more than a route based on renewable energy, energy efficiency and electrification.
    • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
      4·
      1 year ago

      Lol. You can decarbonize a lot more cheaply by not burning fossil fuels in the first place. Carbon Capture should be a small and expensive part of what we do

      • towerful
        3·
        1 year ago

        Like “we have done all we can, this just needs scrubbed” kinda thing? Absolutely

        • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
          3·
          1 year ago

          Yes, there’s a place for it there, but it’s mostly marketed as “we could do this, so just keep on burning fossil fuels” which simply won’t work

        • neanderthal@lemmy.world
          3·
          1 year ago

          I agree. Carbon capture should be used to offset really hard to replace uses of fossil fuels, like aircraft.

  • CJOtheReal@ani.social
    11·
    1 year ago

    Just grow some crops and turn them into alcohol. We should be able to store that pretty long and pretty easily without problems. Its the most efficient way.