Back

The conclusion we can draw is that current plans and forecasts for emissions reductions are unrealistic, and will not be achievable even if every measure proposed is taken.

So, in my opinion we're most likely going past the 1.5-2C "limits".

As such, we should be focusing on understanding and developing resiliency to the new climate we will have to adapt to, instead of attempting to preserve "business as usual" as if nothing was changing around us.

"But how can we know that Carbon Capture doesn't work?" - Because we've tried making it work for decades with no success.

Here's some examples:
- Gorgon, failed - https://ieefa.org/articles/if-chevron-exxon-and-shell-cant-get-gorgons-carbon-capture-and-storage-work-who-can

- Boundary Dam, failed - https://www.eenews.net/articles/ccs-red-flag-worlds-sole-coal-project-hits-snag/

- Kemper, failed - https://www.eenews.net/articles/the-kemper-project-just-collapsed-what-it-signifies-for-ccs/

If reaching "Net" Zero relies on these systems working, then evidently we will not reach it.

There is no "net" zero - there is only zero emissions, once we stop burning oil, gas, and coal. And we need to get there as soon as possible.

They chose different words - instead of "nonviable technology" they say "Actions Needed to Improve Management", but the report speaks for itself.

Of nineteen projects funded, only three are operational - and those three are consistently failing to meet their capture targets.

Carbon capture is not a solution for the climate crisis. We need to stop burning fossil fuels, as soon as possible.

@mzedp it's not really an option. If carbon emissions went to zero today, it would take natural processes likely 10s or 100s of thousands of years or possibly even millions to sequester the carbon already emitted. While I agree thinking about these technologies from economic point of view doesn't paint a rosy picture, if you are arguing for the immediate cessation of fossil fuel use and simultaneously are concerned about economics, your thinking isn't coherent.

@sqncs I'm not arguing about immediate cessation, I'm talking about immediate steps to reduce consumption, stop expansion of the industry and transition to alternatives.

The problem is not the economics of CCS, it's the PHYSICS.

It doesn't matter how much money gets thrown at the problem, it does not work.

It does not capture the carbon it is supposed to capture.

Thus, if this one and only method to actively remove carbon doesn't work, our only alternative is to reduce emissions.

@sqncs "It's not possible" - I think it absolutely is. What I don't think is possible is that we continue knowingly making our situation worse.

We are in a crisis situation and need to treat it as such. Drastic measures are needed, even if people don't realize it yet.

They will eventually.

@sqncs The IEA said in 2021 "To reach the goal of Net Zero by 2050" (needed to prevent the worst foreseen impacts of climate change) "we need to stop all new oil and gas drilling".

In 2023 oil and gas drilling continues to expand in the north sea - and I'm sure many other places.

The IEAs "Net Zero" forecast relies on CCS - which has been proven not to work.

So, if we are continuing to increase our emissions, and rely on technologies that don't work to save us... what are we doing exactly?

@sqncs No response? Ok.

@mzedp my response was to unfollow you. You still aren't making a coherent argument, you are misreading, misunderstanding and misrepresenting my argument and don't seem to appreciate the point I was making. Upon reflection I realized someone writing a long diatribe via multiple posts probably just wants to vent more than anything and it is probably not the sort of thing I should engage with in the future.

@Datenfunker Stimmt, leider.