• Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    Well yeah that’s like saying it’s more costly to fix an oil spill in the ocean then just simply not use oil to begin with. Yeah obviously.

    The point of carbon capture isn’t to allow us to continue to use carbon producing fuels it’s to undo the damage that’s already being done. So this cost comparison is daft.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        That doesn’t fix the problem though. For one thing they’re not net zero because they’re not capturing 100% of the carbon and also that’s like putting a bucket under a leaky pipe and claiming you fixed the pipe.

        The bucket will overfill and then you’ve still got water on the floor.

        Or you could fix the pipe.