this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2025
350 points (98.3% liked)
Technology
63009 readers
6015 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well yeah that's like saying it's more costly to fix an oil spill in the ocean then just simply not use oil to begin with. Yeah obviously.
The point of carbon capture isn't to allow us to continue to use carbon producing fuels it's to undo the damage that's already being done. So this cost comparison is daft.
It's being used to make fossil fuel plants "net zero"
That doesn't fix the problem though. For one thing they're not net zero because they're not capturing 100% of the carbon and also that's like putting a bucket under a leaky pipe and claiming you fixed the pipe.
The bucket will overfill and then you've still got water on the floor.
Or you could fix the pipe.
Yes exactly. I realize I was a bit vague with the ""-signs. It's shit