“CCS is a technologically unsound and economically unviable scheme, perpetuated by the fossil fuel industry…”

  • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Because this “one trial” was the literal best-case scenario, and it still sprung a leak that would cost more to fix than they could gain by banking carbon sequestration credits.

    • deegeese
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      All I’m hearing is the first experiment failed, and y’all would rather give up than fix it.

      • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Yeah, obviously I’d much rather that R&D budgets got spent on things that might actually make a difference rather than new ways of kicking the can down the road for future generations to deal with.

        You’re weirdly defensive about this idea. What’s up with that? Daddy got some investments in the fossil fuel industry?

        • deegeese
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          The whole article is weirdly dismissive of new technology.

          • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            It’s not new technology, for one. We’ve been using injection wells like landfills since the 1930’s because it’s cheaper than treating and disposing of wastewater safely.