221–227 of 227 posts
Why not direct the money to the planting of trees?
Trees eventually rot or burn, carbon stored in the biosphere can be a useful "capacitor" for reducing atmospheric carbon, but in the long run we really need to put it back in the geosphere where we got it from.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW, the grandparent's industry specific knowledge is in investment into developing renewable energy companies. This isn't very applicable to the article or problem at hand.
1) doesn't justify telling someone their experience means "squat" 2) since when do you have to be vetted/credentialed to participate in a discussion here?
Since they're using their credentials to try and lend credulity to their argument. Specifically, it's an "appeal to [their] authority" on the subject, but they don't have that requisite 'authority'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1) doesn't justify telling someone their experience means "squat" 2) since when do you have to be vetted/credentialed to participate in a discussion here?
> since when do you have to be vetted/credentialed to participate in a discussion here Since they're using their credentials to try and lend credulity to their argument. Specifically, it's an "appeal to [their] authority" on the subject, but they don't have that requisite 'authority'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can only hope that those driving the division (older people) will be dead soon, so that the younger generations who are by and large more eco-friendly can get on with the difficult work that needs to be done. Its past time for the old, rotten way of thinking to be plowed under.
What an arrogant statement. When old and young disagree on a political issue, you assume the old are wrong? Why? Is there some fact they don't know? Have they not thought through all the correct chains of causation, whereas you have? Of course not. They might turn out to be right. You can't assume you're right just because all your peers agree with you and the outsider group is wrong because that's not the group you…
You seem threatened by pessimism. I see it as a tool.
Sorry, but this feel-goodism around carbon capture doesn’t work. They paid $775/ton. Coal is $30/ton. Those are not carbon-free facilities and salaries. Capture requires energy that could be used to reduce carbon emissions demand. 2nd law of thermodynamics says you can’t win this game. The best carbon capture technology is plants and plankton. The best carbon strategy is to use less. Buying offsets feels like peniten…
> They paid $775/ton. Coal is $30/ton. That's the whole problem, the cost of coal needs to come up and that's something that's in policy makers hands. Stripe is trying to reduce that $775 by investing early in these projects. > Capture requires energy that could be used to reduce carbon emissions demand. 2nd law of thermodynamics says you can’t win this game. Assuming all energy comes from coal, which isn't even remo…
Non-sequitur. And no, I believe that's a marginal rate.
> Assuming all energy comes from coal
all=>any, coal=>hydrocarbons
> All plants die and decay, returning carbon to the carbon cycle.
How do you think the fossil fuels got underground in the first place?
Okay, yeah, it's complicated, but the planet has sequestered carbon from volcanic eruptions over billions of years before anyone tried pumping it down a mine shaft. Really it's mostly done by clouds, which absorb CO2 into H2CO3 and then plankton build their shells out of it, and deposit it as lime at the bottom of the ocean. Land-based carbon also washes away as acid or gets buried or turned into ash by oxygen-poor heat from fires.
Now the whole problem we're concerned about is not exactly carbon, but global warming, which is caused firstly by low albedo, and secondly by greenhouse gas absorption of surface heat remissions.
The most significant source of albedo is clouds, as is the most significant source of carbon capture. So it's really too bad that we've been waging a global war on clouds. We seed clouds for aviation, for farming, for ski resorts, tourism, whatever; we hate clouds. Everybody does it.
It seems to me that I see less of them today than decades ago, but I don't know. (Okay, I just checked, and yes, this is true)
> we need to put carbon back
Sorry, but no, no, no. _We_ do not need to do anything. _We_ are not helping. Do you have any idea how much carbon emission it takes to build a sequestration plant? We need to do less of everything. Less driving, less building, less industry, and less buying junk you don't need, even if 1% is going to some feel-good slush fund to pump up revenues for someone's misguided eco-startup investments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The linked article specifically explains that this does not involve the traditional practice of purchasing offsets and is focused on research.
> is focused on research So while their punchline is "Remove carbon as you grow your business", when you read the fine print, they don't even promise to remove any carbon? At least the fine print is honest.
{Climeworks: startup, Project Vesta: non-profit, CarbonCure: startup, Charm: startup}
Smells like an investor scheme to pump revenues. "Honest" fine print would disclose any and all financial interest in these startups by Stripe corporate officers.