It’s amazing this needs to be asked. It’s like asking which is better, a healthy diet or a never-ending course of weight-loss injections?
cybercuzco on
Renewables right now but fund carbon removal development. We aren’t at the economies of scale level for removal that we are at for renewables. It’s more cost efficient to build a solar panel to prevent an emission than it is to capture it. At some point we will have prevented all the easy to prevent emissions and then we will need to start dealing with the carbon that is already in the atmosphere and oceans.
RXP01 on
Very easy. Carbon removal enables constant carbon production with addressing the creation of the CO2. Incidentally, proven high volume significant carbon capture tech that is vommercially viable is not there yet.
Renewables enable carbon production to be reduced – add into it smart product recycling, high carbon products substituted with recycled similar or more durable products that reduce carbon from concrete,timber and plastic production. This creates a path for tangible change.
They use much less energy than the CO2 they prevent.
Meanwhile, let the carbon capture work progress on the side lines as another add on.
Plaswire in UK is commercially recovering wind blades and waste packaging, making substitutes for timber and precast concrete with a very low carbon footprint. Their angle on the titled subject – if you don’t let the horses out, they will not need capturing…
[deleted] on
[deleted]
dittybag23 on
Both.
Choosemyusername on
Reduction. Forgot that part. We waste so. Much. Energy.
Even me who is living on about a tenth of the electricity diet of people in my area, I see that even I am wasting most of the energy I consume but it’s hard to break out when it seems to be just you. You get funneled into other people’s systems.
The sheer raw materials thst needs to go into replacing fossil fuels if we want to live like we currently do but on rebuildables, it is absolutely staggering.
I have 6 solar panels on my house, which powers the house. But if I got an electric car, just one charge would take about 30 days of my normal electricity usage. I would need so many more panels to power a full size electric car with solar. And metals to mount them with. And a loss of my gardening space. It really makes you think twice. My ebike can be charged on a tiny fraction of one day’s electricity. It really brings things into scale when you are generating all of the electricity you consume directly in your own back yard.
If I could only see the indirect energy I consume generated in my own back yard with solar panels, that would REALLY bring the reality of our energy diet home.
The_Angster_Gangster on
Renewables duh. Carbon capture is basically dead in the water
WorldComposting on
Renewables as carbon gets removed when plants grow. So then we can just grow more plants. If we start using electricity to remove carbon it just gives carbon emitters more permission to release more carbon.
UneLoupSeul on
Carbon capture is a scam. It’s been under “development” for decades and has no functional model.
AlexandraThePotato on
Carbon removal gives the same vibes as recycling. If you know you know
Ravaha on
Renewables are the better bet because they are profitable. Carbon capture will never make sense because for much cheaper you could just deploy geostationary retractable sun shades. With the bonus of being able to alleviate droughts, slow down hurricane grown right before landfall and all sorts of things that would make them earn their money back and turning profits very quickly.
You could easily stop desertification or reverse it.
We don’t have the technology or power output to be able to terraform our planet through carbon capture, but we do have the ability to deploy very large thin films of materials on massive scales.
We found that, in theory, shifting to 11 pro-climate behaviors we analyzed in the energy, transport and food sectors could reduce individuals’ GHG emissions by about 6.53 tonnes per year.
This would more than cancel out what an average person currently emits (about 6.3 tonnes per year).
However, our data also shows that when people attempt these changes in the real world, without supportive systems, they typically only reduce emissions by about 0.63 tonnes yearly — just 10% of what’s theoretically possible.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), comprehensive shifts in human behavior could theoretically reduce global emissions by up to 70% by 2050.
But the key word here is “comprehensive.” The IPCC is clear that these massive reductions would result from individual behavior change *combined* with supporting policy, industry and technological transformations that make those behaviors possible and widely accessible.
Systemic pressure creates enabling conditions, but individuals need to complete the loop with our daily choices. It’s a two-way street — bike lanes need cyclists, plant-based options need people to consume them. When we adopt these behaviors, we send critical market signals that businesses and governments respond to with more investment.
Carbon removal is unproven at any scale; renewables are completely proven at scale. You decide.
grungetreehugger on
[**Carbon dioxide removal is not a current climate solution — we need to change the narrative**](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00953-x)
**Drastically reduce emissions first, or carbon dioxide removal will be next to useless.**
captainpoppy on
Both. All things need to be considered.
It’s just like the debate about wind/solar v fossil fuels. We won’t be turning off fossil fuels like the flip of a switch, it’s just a transition.
We need every option on the table.
rangerbeev on
Why not both.
xGentian_violet on
There is no either or at this point, we need both asap
Reduction of GHG emissions is the basis.
Renewables + a shift to less carbon intensive farming (less bovids, prawns, more plant based, etc) + more public transport…
Still at this point it isnt enough on its own, and we also need to sequester the remaining carbon into plant matter (trees, etc). Bioremediation, not scam machines
In other words, carbon capture cannot be a replacement for reducing GHG emissions, but it must an addition to it
WanderingFlumph on
As long as we still use fossil fuels to power the grid and transportation carbon removal is like trying to lower the level of water in the ocean by dumping buckets of sea water in a nearby river.
All that carbon we remove is just going end up back in the air.
19 Comments
And what will power the carbon removal?
It’s amazing this needs to be asked. It’s like asking which is better, a healthy diet or a never-ending course of weight-loss injections?
Renewables right now but fund carbon removal development. We aren’t at the economies of scale level for removal that we are at for renewables. It’s more cost efficient to build a solar panel to prevent an emission than it is to capture it. At some point we will have prevented all the easy to prevent emissions and then we will need to start dealing with the carbon that is already in the atmosphere and oceans.
Very easy. Carbon removal enables constant carbon production with addressing the creation of the CO2. Incidentally, proven high volume significant carbon capture tech that is vommercially viable is not there yet.
Renewables enable carbon production to be reduced – add into it smart product recycling, high carbon products substituted with recycled similar or more durable products that reduce carbon from concrete,timber and plastic production. This creates a path for tangible change.
They use much less energy than the CO2 they prevent.
Meanwhile, let the carbon capture work progress on the side lines as another add on.
Plaswire in UK is commercially recovering wind blades and waste packaging, making substitutes for timber and precast concrete with a very low carbon footprint. Their angle on the titled subject – if you don’t let the horses out, they will not need capturing…
[deleted]
Both.
Reduction. Forgot that part. We waste so. Much. Energy.
Even me who is living on about a tenth of the electricity diet of people in my area, I see that even I am wasting most of the energy I consume but it’s hard to break out when it seems to be just you. You get funneled into other people’s systems.
The sheer raw materials thst needs to go into replacing fossil fuels if we want to live like we currently do but on rebuildables, it is absolutely staggering.
I have 6 solar panels on my house, which powers the house. But if I got an electric car, just one charge would take about 30 days of my normal electricity usage. I would need so many more panels to power a full size electric car with solar. And metals to mount them with. And a loss of my gardening space. It really makes you think twice. My ebike can be charged on a tiny fraction of one day’s electricity. It really brings things into scale when you are generating all of the electricity you consume directly in your own back yard.
If I could only see the indirect energy I consume generated in my own back yard with solar panels, that would REALLY bring the reality of our energy diet home.
Renewables duh. Carbon capture is basically dead in the water
Renewables as carbon gets removed when plants grow. So then we can just grow more plants. If we start using electricity to remove carbon it just gives carbon emitters more permission to release more carbon.
Carbon capture is a scam. It’s been under “development” for decades and has no functional model.
Carbon removal gives the same vibes as recycling. If you know you know
Renewables are the better bet because they are profitable. Carbon capture will never make sense because for much cheaper you could just deploy geostationary retractable sun shades. With the bonus of being able to alleviate droughts, slow down hurricane grown right before landfall and all sorts of things that would make them earn their money back and turning profits very quickly.
You could easily stop desertification or reverse it.
We don’t have the technology or power output to be able to terraform our planet through carbon capture, but we do have the ability to deploy very large thin films of materials on massive scales.
[**The Most Impactful Things You Can Do for the Climate Aren’t What You’ve Been Told**](https://www.wri.org/insights/climate-impact-behavior-shifts)
We found that, in theory, shifting to 11 pro-climate behaviors we analyzed in the energy, transport and food sectors could reduce individuals’ GHG emissions by about 6.53 tonnes per year.
This would more than cancel out what an average person currently emits (about 6.3 tonnes per year).
However, our data also shows that when people attempt these changes in the real world, without supportive systems, they typically only reduce emissions by about 0.63 tonnes yearly — just 10% of what’s theoretically possible.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), comprehensive shifts in human behavior could theoretically reduce global emissions by up to 70% by 2050.
But the key word here is “comprehensive.” The IPCC is clear that these massive reductions would result from individual behavior change *combined* with supporting policy, industry and technological transformations that make those behaviors possible and widely accessible.
Systemic pressure creates enabling conditions, but individuals need to complete the loop with our daily choices. It’s a two-way street — bike lanes need cyclists, plant-based options need people to consume them. When we adopt these behaviors, we send critical market signals that businesses and governments respond to with more investment.
[**19 Climate Friendly Choices Ranked**](https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/v2/D5622AQENad8EOFC7eA/feedshare-image-high-res/B56ZnMSK0PJkAo-/0/1760068940947?e=2147483647&v=beta&t=4jZhiKU47BIGboXKUOsBFIZyRBRlqfrpOXTK5xTPqKE)
Carbon removal is unproven at any scale; renewables are completely proven at scale. You decide.
[**Carbon dioxide removal is not a current climate solution — we need to change the narrative**](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00953-x)
**Drastically reduce emissions first, or carbon dioxide removal will be next to useless.**
Both. All things need to be considered.
It’s just like the debate about wind/solar v fossil fuels. We won’t be turning off fossil fuels like the flip of a switch, it’s just a transition.
We need every option on the table.
Why not both.
There is no either or at this point, we need both asap
Reduction of GHG emissions is the basis.
Renewables + a shift to less carbon intensive farming (less bovids, prawns, more plant based, etc) + more public transport…
Still at this point it isnt enough on its own, and we also need to sequester the remaining carbon into plant matter (trees, etc). Bioremediation, not scam machines
In other words, carbon capture cannot be a replacement for reducing GHG emissions, but it must an addition to it
As long as we still use fossil fuels to power the grid and transportation carbon removal is like trying to lower the level of water in the ocean by dumping buckets of sea water in a nearby river.
All that carbon we remove is just going end up back in the air.