• 9point6@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Obviously there’s more to it than just saying go, but honestly the economics of it should not matter whatsoever.

      It could cost every penny on the planet and still be worth it, the alternative is the end.

      • School_Lunch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        If it’s less effective than simply planting more plants, then it would be pointless. It’ll take a massive amount of renewable energy to have any impact. That renewable energy might be better used to help burn less fossil fuels.

      • Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        This is a nice sentiment that I agree with as a sentiment, but it’s not realistic.

        If it takes the equivalent of 1ton of carbon emissions to capture 1ton of carbon emissions, you are literally going nowhere compared to just replacing fossil fuels.

        So this technology needs to be extremely efficient, otherwise the amount of extra energy generation we need - on top of what we already have, renewable or not - becomes astronomical. So far it does not look anywhere close to being sufficiently efficient.

    • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      We pretty much have no choice. Stopping to put more CO into the atmosphere wont stop climate change unless we can also remove the excess we’ve already put there.