• oakey66@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Industry study is where you can stop reading. The industry in question has been lying to everyone about the impacts of climate change for over half a century.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      When they say “we can use carbon capture to create permission to keep on extracting and burning more than we’re capturing” believe them.

    • Adderbox76@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      That’s why industry people keep yelling about it, even though some very large scale attempts at it were already failures.

      They’ll keep pushing the scam for the same reason we all have to use paper straws; misdirection.

    • futatorius@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      If you look a the physics and engineering challenges of attempting to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere, you’ll very soon reach the conclusion that it’s better to stop CO2 emissions at the source, or to reduce activities that cause CO2 emissions.

      The only people who would rather put pollution into the atmosphere, then spend vast amounts attempting to take it out again, are those whose profits come from selling the oil.

  • pot_belly_mole@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    For anyone wondering whether to click: yes, the article is very critical of this and gives a lot of space to experts who think that this is an absolutely terrible idea. I think the value here is in knowing what the oil industry tries to do and how they try to lie to justify their crimes.

  • Nomecks@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    A carbon capture project will eventually suffer a catastrophic leak and suffocate everything in a 5 mile radius

    • delgato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      I am a geologist that specializes in site characterization for carbon storage reservoirs. Like with any large engineering project there are certain risks but CO2 leaks can be modeled and mitigated with responsible project planning. I can go in more detail if you are interested.

      • Nomecks@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Fantastic. So no carbon capture projects will be grossly mismanaged to maximize profits in areas with low reulations or be abandoned to rot until they blow? That sure as hell happens with gas wells.

  • futatorius@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    There’s no reason to extend use of oil by 84 years. There are strong reasons to terminate its use as soon as we can.

    • Adderbox76@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Opinions such as this simply don’t understand that “oil and gas” isn’t just “fuel”.

      There isn’t any component of modern life that wasn’t created with at least some level of a petroleum based product.

      That “electric car” we rave about? Its tires are rubber. Its moving parts are lubricated. Its wires are sheathed and grounded by plastic. Its faux leather or nylon interior is petroleum based. Same thing if you ride a bike.

      If we go into your house, Anything you own that has any amount of rubber, or plastic, or half a thousand other materials is petroleum based.

      Getting rid of oil isn’t nearly as simple nor as quick a process as opinions like this seem to want.

      Yes, oil needs to be phased out. But it’s a hell of a lot more complicated than hippies think.

      • GuilhermePelayo@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        You are right, but to be fair most things that are petroleum based are made with it because of economic reasons. Many things don’t need to be it’s just cheaper that they are. That’s because of a combination of factors. If tomorrow every oil field in the world disappeared we would see alternatives for almost everything almost instantly because there would be huge financial incentive for it and many of those things already exist, they just have to compete with a very established and subsidized raw material