It’s past time to start investing in technology to suck carbon out of the atmosphere. Evidence shows that we can’t avoid dangerous global warming without carbon capture http://bloom.bg/2CMRe49 pic.twitter.com/2dh1k7WzY5
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
It’s past time to start investing in technology to suck carbon out of the atmosphere. Evidence shows that we can’t avoid dangerous global warming without carbon capture http://bloom.bg/2CMRe49 pic.twitter.com/2dh1k7WzY5
The @IPCC_CH asserts that even if the world manages to keep global warming at just 2°C, there will be dire consequences, including crop failures and sea level rise http://bloom.bg/2CMRe49 #TicTocNews
pic.twitter.com/DHaZSWESts
Carbon capture technology won't go far without government help
In order to make carbon capture schemes profitable, we need subsidies, infrastructure investments and policy changes http://bloom.bg/2CMRe49 pic.twitter.com/V7TMoe4vpQ
The one place where carbon capture has a chance to flourish is California, thanks to the state’s regulations that increasingly require “low-carbon” fuels http://bloom.bg/2CMRe49 pic.twitter.com/1RC4ZY6vBw
A group of environmental engineers proposed another plan for capturing carbon from ethanol refineries in the Midwest – where the emissions are primarily made up of carbon dioxide http://bloom.bg/2CMRe49 pic.twitter.com/qcpd5FVp1a
The amount of carbon captured has to start out small, but people will learn, and the technology will advance. Getting started now is extremely important http://bloom.bg/2CMRe49 pic.twitter.com/IhBcjx3mOa
You forgot nuclear. The only thing we have now that is scale able and zero-carbon.
It’s not zero carbon.
The process of fission does not release CO2. If you're claiming that building lots of new concrete facilities will release carbon you're right but then you have to consider carbon emissions from manufacturing solar panels and wind turbines.
Sure, but the amount of carbon produced in the manufacture of wind turbines is a lot less than a nuclear power station per mwh of installed capacity.
I'd have to see some research on that. You need a LOT of wind turbines (and batteries) to replace a nuclear power plant. http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2011/ph241/ali1/ …pic.twitter.com/P08sR1HIkg
Isn’t that what your chart right there shows?
Never mind I see what you’re saying about batteries making the difference moot. That’s a good point.
Nuclear might also be somewhere in this grand scheme of things but an interesting thread nevertheless. cc @johnrhanger
If you really want carbon reduction why are you sponsored by companies which do the exact opposite?pic.twitter.com/veCFOWs7ee
Molten Salt reactors, are ten times cleaner and more fuel efficient than traditional fuel rod reactors
Isn’t the industrial production of animal products is a bigger contributor?
Just another thing the middle class will pay for through a carbon tax. The uber rich already got an obscene tax cut and will have some loophole created that will save them the liability. It's all in the Federalist's playbook who control tRUMP.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.