“Fossil fuel interests see a clear benefit in promoting direct air capture as a means to preserve the dominance of dirty fossil fuels,” said one advocate.

“Direct air capture is expensive, unproven, and will ultimately make almost no difference in reducing climate pollution… Capturing just a quarter of our annual carbon emissions would require all of the power currently generated in the country.”

  • sbv@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    222·
    1 year ago

    The unproven technology has been a key focus of oil and gas lobbyists, who argue that fossil fuel companies can continue their planet-heating extraction activities if plants are built to remove the pollution they cause.

    these guys

    • jimmydoreisalefty@lemmus.orgOP
      33·
      1 year ago

      Yep. The main thing is profit over people.

      Investing into nuclear would be better in the long term. We have gone a long way in improving fail safes and reusing the waste.

  • AnyProgressIsGood@lemmy.world
    192·
    1 year ago

    You don’t know what you can do until you try. It’s how learning works. Biden has other green initiatives. It’s not like he’s going all in on this.

  • evatronic@lemm.eeEnglish
    151·
    1 year ago

    I can’t say I’m a fan of the current generation of this technology, and I’m not really excited about the idea that we can just use it as an excuse to not change our behaviors.

    However: This kind of investment is how we get better versions of the technology, or learn that it truly is a dead-end.

    Maybe this won’t result in like, amazing faux-trees capturing and sequestering carbon into bricks we turn into buildings or something, but maybe it will result in technology we can miniaturize or repurpose to slap on the ends of tailpipes and the tops of smokestacks. Maybe it’ll end up being a stepping stone to something greater.

    We’re at the point now where we can’t afford to let the perfect be the enemy of good. We need to try everything, even if it’s not perfect right now.

  • YeastInspection@lemmy.world
    7·
    1 year ago

    It’s completely stupid, especially when carbon itself is untaxed. You’re spending $1B to suck something out of a vast and difficult medium that’s getting chucked up there willy nilly by anyone who wants to? Why not spend the money putting systems in place to block its initial exhaust? It would be far more cost effective.