• AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Lol it was always a lie, just like “clean coal technology.”

    The capitalists will always use the crises they cause to part you with more of your capital. They’re just the evolution of ye olde traveling snake oil salesman that used their grift to become the world’s owners.

    And because so many poor, deluded peasants truly, darkly, hilariously believe capitalism can solve the problems capitalism propagates, we’re going to be pumping carbon shit into the air until the capitalists have no more surface peasants left alive to bark orders at from their temperature controlled bunker compounds.

    And even then, the owners will somehow still blame the corpses for not implementing their orders correctly or something.

    • Eheran@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Carbon capture can make sense.

      Not sure how you can spin that as some sort of capitalist shenanigans when in reality, a lot of universities and start ups created stuff with very little funding.

      • Rhaedas@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        There is existing, and there is being effective for the advertised job. Carbon capture certainly exists in different forms and makes sense as an addon to an existing emitter. It’s hyped to be a lot more than what it does, even used to excuse more emissions growth, and that’s the snake oil being talked about. In the end the only true “solution” is to reduce the actual production of emissions, something that the overall world is not will to do. And I put solution in quotes because we’re decades behind on action that would be meaningful, having exponentially increased the pollution since then. We’d have to do far more than just stop emissions to fix anything.

          • Rhaedas@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sure. There isn’t a question of need, but of the math. Unfortunately the 2nd Law is a bit of a stickler. Far easier to get energy and release CO2 than to get the CO2 back into one place.