this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2025
396 points (87.9% liked)

Science Memes

12384 readers
1598 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 30 points 6 days ago (15 children)

The argument is that there exist some use cases where we do not have a viable low carbon energy source yet (things like heavy farming equipment or aircraft), and one can effectively counteract the emissions of these things until we do develop one. Or alternatively, by the time that we eliminate all the high carbon energy, the heating effect already present may be well beyond what we desire the climate to be like, and returning it to a prior state would require not just not emitting carbon, but removing some of what is already there.

[–] artificialfish@programming.dev 5 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (12 children)

I just literally can’t imagine a machine that is both cheaper and easier to deploy than the green goo we call life. Plant a tree. It’ll even spread itself. They look pretty.

[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 9 points 6 days ago (8 children)

Unfortunately, this is one area human imagination and intuition fail. Trees are great, but the math shows they simply aren't remotely viable as a means of bulk carbon sequestration.

[–] artificialfish@programming.dev 11 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

I think you have to cut them down and bury them (or at least don’t burn them) for the carbon to “go away”.

That’s how it got underground to begin with.

Still until we actually 100% switch everything we could power off solar and wind to solar and wind, active carbon capture doesn’t make sense, sense we could use that clean energy for direct purposes instead of cleanup. I’m not sure we will ever have “excess energy” like that, we will always rather use it for something other than cleaning up our mess, like AI.

yes, you are correct, it makes more sense to focus on electrifying our big consumers first.

however, cleaning up could happen eventually. maybe some politician in the future will sell it as some "jobs program" or sth.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)