“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.”
“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.”
The “greedy scientists just want more money for studies” angle makes me an little uncomfortable since it is the same one used by the side arguing we shouldn’t be spending any money on green energy.
The fact that the fossil fuels industry supports this research is a way better argument, IMHO. Also, we do have these great carbon sequestration machines already. They are called trees.
No, I’m acting pointing out that OP cited the ones I specifically asked not to.
My request was to cite statements from the wider community, not the scientists who study carbon capture themselves. With the green energy you can find those easily from basically any era because it has clearly been a strong option to fight the climate change.