The article talks about how moving to renewables is better than staying with fossil, which is true. It is also true that we need fossil sources for things that don’t have an alternative (yet, like steel production) It is also true that to keep the price of more expensive cleaner option viable carbon credits help

[–] monogram@feddit.nl 1 points 2 months ago

Hint: photosynthesis

[–] cows_are_underrated@feddit.org 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

To be fair you can use the captured carbon for building or for carbon rivers so its not completely useless. Just way to expensive.

[–] psud@aussie.zone 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Problem the first: carbon capture is too expensive

Problem the second: when you do carbon capture you get CO2 gas

I'm starting to like the idea of growing forests, cutting down those forests, cooking the wood to ~~charcoal~~ activated carbon (in solar furnaces perhaps) and storing near pure solid carbon