Carbon capture technologies are methods designed to capture and store carbon dioxide emissions from sources like power plants to prevent them from entering the atmosphere. Proponents argue that subsidies would accelerate the development of essential technologies to combat climate change. Opponents argue that it is too costly and that the market should drive innovation without government intervention.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
@ISIDEWITH12mos12MO
Yes
@9MYJKN412mos12MO
Carbon capture is not effective in helping with climate change. It is expensive and uses electricity to maintain, meaning theoretically coal could be used to power carbon capture, which is only storing the emissions from the coal that was used to fuel the carbon capture. It’s pointless and promotes the idea that we don’t have to change our lifestyles to prevent further global warming.
@ISIDEWITH12mos12MO
No
@9MW5DZS12mos12MO
The argument against carbon capture is based on current ways of capturing carbon. Technology is driven by demand and as climate change increasingly affects us, the technology will improve.
@9PXL2XK 11mos11MO
Yes but within reason, it shouldn’t be just us trying funding something that would benefit the world
@9NF7HLP12mos12MO
No, carbon capture technology can be used by some corporations as greenwashing to distract from environmental damage they're causing which is more nuanced than just CO2 emissions. Governments should subsidise practices which reduce emissions and other forms of pollution/damage rather than just offsetting them.
@9QFXM4J11mos11MO
CCS needs to be proven before large sums of money are invested. Focus on low carbon technologies and reducing emissions of GHG instead
@9QFNFLN11mos11MO
Carbon capture doesn't work as of yet and often is used by companies that produce lots of fossil fuels to make it seem like they are trying to be better.
@9QFKFRS11mos11MO
Yes, but only as a temporary measure with a cast-iron commitment from those companies to moving to purely renewable sources.
@9Q9WWSF11mos11MO
No we should concentrate on reducing carbon emissions not undoing the damage from production of carbon dioxide
@9Q6R8ZZ11mos11MO
Yes, only provided that there is high potential to turn a profit or profitable applications in the future. when deciding the government should consider the cost of the subsidy and weather it is needed long term or short term and weigh it next to the technology potential to profit and the amout it should profit by and the technologies overall benifit to society.
Yes, and provide subsidies to renewable energy companies, and invest in reforestation and increase spending on renewable energy, and tax carbon emissions.
Carbon capture is a waste of time and is only being promoted to allow fossil fuel giants to keep doing what they're doing.
@9QLPLZM11mos11MO
No, companies should be doing that anyway and the best carbon capture is with trees, so the government should ban developments in green belt land and plant more trees everywhere.
@9QJWJ6911mos11MO
Yes, but only via the use of naturally available plants and trees that can deal with the CO2, not via 'factory-style' CO2 removers.
@9QGT7BF11mos11MO
No, this technology won’t save us. Rewilding is a cheaper and better way to capture and store carbon, nature has done it for billions of years. Green growth doesn’t exist and carbon capture technology is just a way to force that on us.
@9Q3ZT5V11mos11MO
No, we need to learn redistribute natural resources and cut back on over-consumption to live in harmony with the planet
Only if those technologies were then made available to the government for free/at cost upon completion of the government funded research.
@9PY7GLF11mos11MO
That’s what trees, plants and algae do- we need to stop deforestation and pollution of waterways and oceans
@9P9FQNT11mos11MO
Only after it is determined that they actually work. Too much money has been given to private companies who have not produced positive results
The money should be invested in preventing the release of carbon, carbon capture technology will not be viable for many decades.
It seems logical to reward businesses that are trying to reverse climate change but not if it is too expensive. This isn't addressing the issue so much as putting a plaster over it.
@9PYB3M711mos11MO
They should prove that this is what they are doing, not just SAY it's what they're doing - look at what happened during the Pandemic. Billions given to 'companies' for 'PPE' that never materialised, and most of which was never paid back. Think of the way the NHS could have used that.
@9PQKLMY11mos11MO
Only for those technologies that drawdown emissions from the air - like direct air capture. Not for CCS used with power stations.
@9PNQ6TC11mos11MO
I'm unsure how effective this is as a long term solution - we should focus on producing less carbon altogether.
Yes, but subsidies to private companies are a comparatively ineffective way of reducing carbon emissions
@9PGJZTT11mos11MO
Sounds like a great way forward, however what happens to the captured carbon? Just another problem for future generations?
@9MZVWLG12mos12MO
As long as such companies actually tick all other environmental boxes. eg. do not drive unessary 4 wheel drives etc., There is not unnecessary profiteering and companies that do this are genuinely interested rather than seeing such incentives as a way of making more money.
@9MZ55HZ12mos12MO
Only if they are developing proper carbon capture that works
@9MYJK6W12mos12MO
Carbon capture does not solve the root problem. We need to transition from a carbon economy
@9MSWJ5312mos12MO
No, we should be focusing on carbon deduction as opposed to carbon capture. Cure is better than a plaster.
@9NZS6KB11mos11MO
Carbon capture is a small technical solution. It won't fix the issue of rising carbon. This will not work. It's greenwashijg. Subsidies for real circular and green sustainability
@9NQMVXH11mos11MO
No, carbon capture is not economically efficient. Storing it does not help emissions, converting and utilising it is the main point
@9NQ6N2C 11mos11MO
Yes, in return for share in companies, they are spending public money into a private company after all
No, unless a long term sustainable goal for storage of the removed CO2 is established. No point capturing it to release it back to the atmosphere.
Money should go into not emitting carbon in the first place. I believe this is a temperary solution to a larger problem, it won't fix it
@9N4H9VR12mos12MO
increase legislation on carbon emissions instead, remove the problem then there's no need for fixes.
@9N2NCTK12mos12MO
No, carbon capture technology is avoiding the real issue of emitting carbon dioxide
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
