this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2023
73 points (89.2% liked)

politics

19072 readers
4125 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

“Direct air capture is expensive, unproven, and will ultimately make almost no difference in reducing climate pollution… Capturing just a quarter of our annual carbon emissions would require all of the power currently generated in the country.”

all 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The unproven technology has been a key focus of oil and gas lobbyists, who argue that fossil fuel companies can continue their planet-heating extraction activities if plants are built to remove the pollution they cause.

these guys

[–] jimmydoreisalefty@lemmus.org 0 points 1 year ago

Yep. The main thing is profit over people.

Investing into nuclear would be better in the long term. We have gone a long way in improving fail safes and reusing the waste.

[–] AnyProgressIsGood@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

You don't know what you can do until you try. It's how learning works. Biden has other green initiatives. It's not like he's going all in on this.

[–] evatronic@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can't say I'm a fan of the current generation of this technology, and I'm not really excited about the idea that we can just use it as an excuse to not change our behaviors.

However: This kind of investment is how we get better versions of the technology, or learn that it truly is a dead-end.

Maybe this won't result in like, amazing faux-trees capturing and sequestering carbon into bricks we turn into buildings or something, but maybe it will result in technology we can miniaturize or repurpose to slap on the ends of tailpipes and the tops of smokestacks. Maybe it'll end up being a stepping stone to something greater.

We're at the point now where we can't afford to let the perfect be the enemy of good. We need to try everything, even if it's not perfect right now.

[–] YeastInspection@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

It's completely stupid, especially when carbon itself is untaxed. You're spending $1B to suck something out of a vast and difficult medium that's getting chucked up there willy nilly by anyone who wants to? Why not spend the money putting systems in place to block its initial exhaust? It would be far more cost effective.

[–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] style99@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)