silence7@slrpnk.netM to Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.@slrpnk.netEnglish · 29 days ago
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
silence7@slrpnk.netM to Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.@slrpnk.netEnglish · 29 days ago
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
tl;dr - it’s sequestration, not reduction. Liquify it and pump it underground.
They don’t capture all the emitted CO2, so it’s a reduction.
It’s not reducing the amount of co2 generated from making the cement. It still generates the same amount, they just take some of it and pump it into the ground.
I think we’re in agreement, just using terms in slightly different ways.
To me, carbon reduction means you have modified the process in some way that it generates less carbon while producing the same (or functionally identical) product. That is how we fight climate change.
Generating the same amount of carbon but just putting it somewhere else is putting a bandage on gangrene. It makes it look better, but the infection is still festering underneath. In this case, making it a problem for future generations so the current generation doesn’t have to sacrifice anything.