this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2024
133 points (90.8% liked)

Uplifting News

11319 readers
47 users here now

Welcome to /c/UpliftingNews, a dedicated space where optimism and positivity converge to bring you the most heartening and inspiring stories from around the world. We strive to curate and share content that lights up your day, invigorates your spirit, and inspires you to spread positivity in your own way. This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity often found in today's news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity's capacity for good.

Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else's big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 37 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (5 children)

According to the article, this isn't even recapturing CO2. It's grabbing plant/decomposable waste before it rots, turning it into these dense bricks, and burying it under ground. Like, collecting corn husks from farmers. This feels stupid to me and like a big gimmick.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

i imagined that would be the case when i read that its a bill gates thing

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago

We're in the golden age of greenwashing. Corporations are horny to show like they are "doing something" for the environment without doing a fucking thing. But it can't be too expensive and have it eat into their bottom line.

Just environmentally conscious enough to win over people who feel guilty for flying (bonus if you can get them to pay) but not so much that your shareholders wonder if you aren't putting their short term interests first.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

this isn't even recapturing CO2. It's grabbing plant/decomposable waste before it rots

Does this not amount to the same thing? The plants capture the CO2 and store it in sugar, which is then buried instead of burning it for energy or letting it rot.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I agree. The concept is simple, and it's not perfect, but it isn't dumb either. This is basically recreating how coal and oil got in the ground in the first place. Plants absorbed carbon from the air as they grew, then they got buried in a way that prevented them from decomposing and re-releasing it into the atmosphere. My main question here would be whether burying it only 10 feet under ground is really enough for long term storage. The other big elephant in the room with carbon capture is that it can be a convenient excuse for companies to avoid doing work towards actually decarbonizing their operations. If, as the article suggests, this is used primarily by industries like cement making that don't currently have a way to become carbon neutral then it's a good thing. If it's just used as cynical green washing by companies who could be doing better, then it's at best a wash, and arguably a net negative.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago

Yep, that sounds dumb. Organic waste should be used for fertilizer.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I guess it is preventing methane generation from the hungry microbes but yeah this seems useless. Add on carbon used to make and bury them too

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

That would be very dumb because methane leaves the atmosphere on its own much more quickly than CO2. Roughly 12 years compared to carbon dioxide being closer to 500 years.

Of course it's kind of a half life so putting a single number on it isn't perfect but that's the difference in scale at least.