• ferret@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    5 months ago

    Carbon capture makes much more sense directly on smokestacks and other industry waste outputs, but then how do businesses make taxpayers fund it?

    • jeffw@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Idk, I just feel like it’s 1. A cop out. We need to reduce emissions and not put our eggs in one basket. And 2. In its infancy. The tech isn’t efficient enough yet to be rolled out imo

      • vividspecter@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I think we should pursue it for the future, but it shouldn’t be taking funding that could be used for more immediate solutions or used as a distraction / delay tactic (although of course it will).

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          I disagree. I think we should:

          1. Pilot it to prove the cost
          2. Charge a carbon tax based loosely on that number and (high) estimates for the amount of carbon emitted
          3. Return the carbon tax to the public as a credit

          This keeps the tax revenue neutral (i.e. theoretically no hit to GDP) while encouraging companies to find cheaper ways to reduce carbon emissions or capture carbon to offset emissions.

          If it’s ineffective at reducing emissions, then start spending a portion of it to remove carbon.

    • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      Preventing additional carbon emissions doesn’t decrease what’s already in the atmosphere. We would need some form of carbon capture even if we stopped all emissions today.