For most countries around the world, sourcing energy entirely from wind, solar, geothermal, and hydropower by 2050 would reduce their energy needs and costs, improve air quality, and help slow climate change, according to a study in Environmental Science & Technology.
  • gi1242@lemmy.world
    7·
    2 months ago

    unfortunately the polluters do a lot of greenwashing to get public goodwill. plastic recycling is one of them unfortunately. less than 1% of plastic in use today is recycled…

    in the old days plastic recycling would only accept certain kinds of plastic. now they take everything. they don’t recycle everything. they take everything. and throw out the other kinds at the recycling facility

    I wonder if carbon capture is similar greenwashing…

    • MrMakabar@slrpnk.netEnglish
      21·
      2 months ago

      We currently emit a lot so the choice is: emit less with renewables or keep emitting but capture the carbon

      Since renewables are much cheaper we reduce emissions much faster then going with carbon capture. That might be a good idea down the line, but currently 80% of our energy comes from fossil fuels, so down the line is probably decades.

  • 🇨🇦 tunetardis@lemmy.caEnglish
    3·
    2 months ago

    I have no doubt that renewables are the lowest hanging fruit at the moment, and that we could get to net-zero mostly using them. But there is a big difference between mostly and entirely. As you approach the higher-hanging fruit, things get exponentially more expensive, and there may come a point at which some form of carbon capture is needed to cover that last segment of emissions? Also, I see no mention of nuclear here. I suspect it will need to play a role, though how large that would be remains uncertain. It should definitely be included in any cost analysis though.

  • acargitz@lemmy.ca
    3·
    2 months ago

    The only reasons to not switch are political: the threatened power of the fossil capitalists and the geopolitical struggle with China.

  • MalReynolds@slrpnk.netEnglish
    2·
    2 months ago

    Thing is, the time for net-zero has passed, did you hear that whooshing sound?

    To pull back from the brink, what is needed is net-negative, which ain’t happening without capture (alongside massive reduction in emissions), economics be damned, it’s an existential threat, it’s about survival. Could be as simple as massive reforestation, could be fusion generators pulling CO2 out of the air, will probably be many different things, but learning what works, as soon as possible, is imperative.

    • Skua@kbin.earth
      1·
      2 months ago

      We’re nowhere near net zero, though. We do need to get there first. Since carbon capture removes far less carbon per money spent on it than replacing fossil fuel power plants with clean options does, carbon capture doesn’t really make sense right now

      The varieities that might work out are give some other benefit for now. Afforestation can help prevent desertification, for example

  • monkA
    2·
    2 months ago

    Oh, so will you pay the delta to the uncooperative countries to switch to renewables? No? Then we’ll have to do the real expensive thing: both.

  • Nora@lemmy.ml
    0·
    2 months ago

    If any of you give a shit about the environment or animals, go vegan.

    Going vegan is the single biggest thing you can do to reduce your carbon footprint. apart from unaliving yourself.