Comment by hutzlibu

"We've waited far to long already and simply can't afford to ignore any part of the solution that can help reduce total emissions faster. "

Totally agree. No dogmatic framework is helpful, that opposes solutions out of principle. I hope I am not doing that.

It is just, that ressources are limited.

Any solar, wind or water plant, that connects to the grid is helping. Likely also every nuclear reactor.

But the carbon capture solution I see not really helping, as long as coal plants are being build and are proposed by the exact kind of people, who said before that it is all not so bad and economy growth is always more important.

" So don't let them lead you think that carbon capture isn't an important part of the solution that is being developed by people who care deeply and climate change."

With what I know, I sadly really don't see it as part of the solution, but part of the distraction, part of the problem.

In germany the car lobby recently achieved, that the ban on new ICE cars in 2035 was in effect negated, because cars with E-Fuels should obviously excempt. Except that cars that can run with E-Fuels can also run with normal fuels and E-Fuels make no sense economically, so they already demanded for massive state subventioning of the concept. Spend lots of energy to generate a bit of fuel to continue the big roar of their loud engines. So all just fake. And those are the exact same people who lobby for the concept of carbon capture. Lot's of politicial "activism" to effectivly change nothing, except on paper.

So to repeat myself, I am not against carbon sequestering by principle.

I just think focussing on it now is just distracting from the real solutions needed now.

Once we stopped the last coal plant - then we can talk about spending surplus energy to capture existing CO2. Not before. And it is still a long way to get there.