1. The world's best reading app

    Great articles, no ads. Get started for free.

    atmos.earthYessenia Funes18 min
    3 reads2 comments
    10
    atmos.earth
    3 reads
    10
    You must read the article before you can post or reply.
    • lindseybeatrice1 month ago

      An EXTREMELY important perspective as we are rapidly losing out on our ability to keep global warming under 2deg C this century. In the new IPCC report, 100/116 mitigation strategies for keeping us at a "safe" level of warming (but nothing is safe, actually) include carbon capture. But as this article points out, that is not really a feasible, scalable tech right now. So what are our options, other than a MASSIVE MASSIVE reduction in GHG emissions? We have to put our focus there, carbon capture is not our savior. Thoughts?

      (Please, if you're going to comment, make sure you understand the reality of the climate crisis - it is REAL, it is HAPPENING, and we HAVE TO start implementing large-scale solutions or else my generation and everyone after me is completely fucked)

      • thorgalle
        ScoutScribe
        3 weeks ago

        The article also reported that even in the hypothetical case that all emissions stop today, we may not be able to rely on natural carbon sinks anymore (like the Amazone forest). I guess that’s what your 100/116 points at.

        In that case, it’s certainly not hopeful that emissions are still increasing today 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️.

        We have to put our focus there, carbon capture is not our savior. Thoughts?

        I think we have to do it all. Dramatically reduce GHG, and at the same time improve carbon capture tech. We’ll probably need both. Improving carbon capture tech shouldn’t be an excuse to keep polluting (so I’m heavily frowning upon the enhanced oil recovery).

        Finally: this article was also discussing marginalized communities and climate justice. Those grievances are valid, but I can’t help but think: don’t they slow resolutions down?