Roston, E. and Kaufman L. (2023, August 14). How Carbon Capture Is Getting New Life With US Help. Retrieved 2023, August 20 from https://www.washingtonpost.com/bus iness/energy/2023/08/14/us-carbon-capture-efforts-challenges-and-impact-explained/d3d5848e-3aaf-11ee-aefd-40c039a855ba_story.html
Top climate experts have said that the current 2 billion metric tons of carbon removed mostly through tree planting is insufficient. In order to limit global temperature rises going forward carbon capture efforts have to improve and increase dramatically. Carbon capture and storage and direct air capture are the two most common methods used to decrease carbon levels. Both methods can face issues when it comes to public opinion, cost, and scalability but the leading efforts to increase carbon capture by increasing funding greatly for both methods of carbon reduction.
This article brings up a little-discussed option for trying to avoid the worst effects of global warming. The industry of carbon capture is still in its infancy and has been viewed by many as a waste of money due to the high cost relative to the amount of carbon it actually collects. Some are also concerned that embracing carbon capture may lead to a slower transition from fossil fuels. I think that it is a very intriguing possibility. If its efficiency could be improved and if it was given sufficient funding it could potentially allow us to have a much less catastrophic transition from fossil fuels. Massive portions of the country are reliant on fossil fuels and nearly two million jobs rely on fossil fuel industries. If we could decrease the impact of fossil fuel power plants the transition could go much more smoothly. I also think it would be very fitting for technology and innovation to be the thing to save us, as it has been our own industrialization that has put us in this position. Overall carbon capture should not be viewed as our savior as it is still in the early stages, but it is absolutely worth devoting more effort and funding to because of how great the benefits could be should it prove to be effective.
I do agree that carbon capture is a potentially viable option for reducing carbon emissions in the atmosphere. But does it really make sense to prioritize and push for funding for it when there isn’t a large amount of testing and evidence done for it yet to prove that this could be a long term solution to carbon pollution in the air? Let me know what you think.
Thanks for your comment. The technology certainly works, the concern is more with how cost-effective it may be. I think we should devote resources to making it more cost-effective, but not to its actual implementation until it isn’t so costly.