Big citation needed on “most” co2 reductions come from carbon capture. If you have it I’d be interested, I couldn’t find anything suggesting that. It’s a huge bill that carbon capture is just one small part of. I do agree in most circumstances it’s talked about right now it’s a bit of a scam, especially the idea you’re going to be able to pull it out of the air at very low concentrations. Capturing carbon from existing fossil fuel facilities where the concentration may be much higher (something like 13% in many cases as opposed to like 0.04% in normal air) is something more worth exploring. Unless you’re suggesting all fossil fuel facilities shut down overnight, exploring ways to make facilities release less carbon is important. The cited article makes a big point about how the power plant emitted more than it captured. But how much would it have emitted without any capture it conspicuously leaves out. Without any capture it would emit more I would assume. Certainly it sounds like those Shell executives lied about how much it was capturing and the US needs to do more, not disagreeing there.
The inflation reduction act was still the most impactful climate act ever passed. You can argue to do more without pretending it was nothing. Dems wanted to do more as well, a lot of these compromises were to get one last senator to come along, and if we had more Dems in the senate they wouldn’t have done it. Or even a single fucking republican out of any of them of course who doesn’t want to actively destroy the earth. Save the most vicious attacks for the ones who deserve it most, not the ones actually trying to do something.
Big citation needed on “most” co2 reductions come from carbon capture. If you have it I’d be interested, I couldn’t find anything suggesting that. It’s a huge bill that carbon capture is just one small part of. I do agree in most circumstances it’s talked about right now it’s a bit of a scam, especially the idea you’re going to be able to pull it out of the air at very low concentrations. Capturing carbon from existing fossil fuel facilities where the concentration may be much higher (something like 13% in many cases as opposed to like 0.04% in normal air) is something more worth exploring. Unless you’re suggesting all fossil fuel facilities shut down overnight, exploring ways to make facilities release less carbon is important. The cited article makes a big point about how the power plant emitted more than it captured. But how much would it have emitted without any capture it conspicuously leaves out. Without any capture it would emit more I would assume. Certainly it sounds like those Shell executives lied about how much it was capturing and the US needs to do more, not disagreeing there.
The inflation reduction act was still the most impactful climate act ever passed. You can argue to do more without pretending it was nothing. Dems wanted to do more as well, a lot of these compromises were to get one last senator to come along, and if we had more Dems in the senate they wouldn’t have done it. Or even a single fucking republican out of any of them of course who doesn’t want to actively destroy the earth. Save the most vicious attacks for the ones who deserve it most, not the ones actually trying to do something.