this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2024
613 points (93.4% liked)

Nature Enthusiasts

795 readers
4 users here now

For all media, news and discussion focusing on nature!

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

1-No advertising or spam.

2-No harrassment of any kind.

3-No illegal or NSFW or gore content.

founded 1 year ago
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Skasi@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I think that'd be too little "bang for your buck" to be worth it. Investments might make matters even worse. After all, at some point building more and more energy generators for less and less efficient things will have severe drawbacks. Those energy generators aren't built for free, nor are the machines necessary to build them, let alone the inefficient machines used to scrub co2 from the air.

I believe an active push towards carbon dioxide removal can be a double edged sword and even dangerous, especially if it relies on electricity (as opposed to actions which provide other benefits and help nature recover, like restoring forests, marshes/wetlands, etc.). As long as people want to do it with electricity, the demand for fossile fuels for electricity is bound to increase one way or another. Even if one country wants to do it 100% clean and could produce enough energy for direct air capture and all of its inhabitants are trustworthy, they're still going to be in competition with other countries - and if country A happens to own all the materials to build things like batteries or wind turbines, then country B will struggle and instead rely on gas or coal plants.

Some lobbyists might tell you otherwise, but there's definitely many many more important than things to invest time/effort/money into. Social care, social injustice, public transportation, energy storage/stability, natural disasters, peace, climate refugees, etc.