73
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
SLAM!
Slam
this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2023
73 points (89.2% liked)
politics
18883 readers
3630 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS