[dghlsakjg]

You must.

That list is a bunch of pilot projects and commitments AFAICT. One of the projects is burning methane from oil production to produce hydrogen to recapture carbon. That’s not really gonna save the world.

I couldn’t find much evidence in there that carbon capture is being done at scale or in a way that isn’t using energy in ways that it would be more efficient to just not do it, since it is pulling from a grid that is partially carbon powered.

[brutusborn]

So your criteria for success is to ‘save the world.’

How about we aim for ‘reduce emissions’ or ‘develop solutions’? Or even better ‘stop opposing people who are trying to help’?

All tech starts at small scales. Yours is an absurd rebuttal.

[dghlsakjg]

Ok, take out the save the world comment.

Can you point to a promising project from the link you posted? Like I said, it lists a lot of funding, but not a lot of actual carbon sequestration.

Your rebuttal doesn’t actually provide evidence that carbon sequestration is a technology that is on its way to working on the small scale. All of those projects are sequestering carbon by consuming massive amounts of energy from sources that are partially or completely carbon powered.

[brutusborn]

It’s early stage tech, they’re all promising in that _they are trying to develop tech to help_. How can I prove a developing tech will scale? How can you prove it won’t? It started at 0 and is now at millions of tonnes scale. If that isn’t good enough progress then I have nothing for you.

Imagine using the same logic in the 80s “solar panels produce hardly any power and use lots of fossil fuels for production, why are we wasting resources developing them?”

Or the internet in the 90s “it will have less impact than the fax machine.”

It’s just emotional nonsense. We should support the people working on solutions, not complain from the sidelines.

[dghlsakjg]

All I’m asking for is a specific project that looks promising instead of a Wikipedia page that is mostly a list of available funding.