Carbon capture technologies are methods designed to capture and store carbon dioxide emissions from sources like power plants to prevent them from entering the atmosphere. Proponents argue that subsidies would accelerate the development of essential technologies to combat climate change. Opponents argue that it is too costly and that the market should drive innovation without government intervention.
@GavinKuebler2wks2W
No, they are a largely inefficient means of reducing carbon since they focus only on reversing environmental harm rather than reducing it and can be used to justify further carbon emissions.
@9NCW7BK7hrs7H
We have many ways we create power in this country - so each method would capture and store CO2 in different ways. This question needs to be more specific.
That's a big problem I have with many college students who harp about climate change - they haven't done their homework so they talk in generalties. A lot of these folks - don't even know what is too much or the right amount of CO2.
@ChaseOliver 4 days4D
The best way for government to combat climate change would be to lower taxes and end artificial barriers to entry that protect favored firms and stifle innovation. Doing so would allow the market to find solutions.
@ChaseOliver 4 days4D
The best way to combat climate change is by reducing taxes and artificial barriers to entry so that incentives for innovation allow the market to provide solutions,
@9N5XMF74 days4D
No, carbon capture is too expensive and impractical. The government should tax carbon emissions instead
@9N5WBYD4 days4D
No, carbon capture is a relatively ineffectual technology. We should support hydroelectric and nuclear energy instead
@ChaseOliver 4 days4D
Government should lower taxes and eliminate artificial barriers to entry for all firms large and small, allowing market incentives for innovation to spur development of technologies.
@9N36PJ8Peace and Freedom5 days5D
Regenerative farming should be substitutes, and it would capture more carbon than other technologies.
@9MY56NM6 days6D
No, the government should fund their own research and penalize companies that don't follow best practice
@9MS62CQLibertarian1wk1W
I want to say no but with limited choices, consumer opinion is almost moot. Without intervention, companies have no reason to change because customers have virtually no voice.
@9MQ3BJM1wk1W
No, most carbon capture tech is mainly a means of giving companies an out on their emissions levels and distract from actual solutions such as degrowth and ending capitalism.
@9MMY27HWomen’s Equality 2wks2W
No, because it would be unfair to the other companies
@SenBR2003 2wks2W
Yes, but only in tandem with supporting renewable energy production.
@9MM4HQS2wks2W
I feel like it's a loop. Like it's something that'll never end. How effective would it be, honestly?
@Dry550Independent 2wks2W
Carbon capture can create the possibility of continuing work at power plants while not harming the environment, thus preserving the Earth for a bit longer. Government intervention is necessary in areas where the current methods aren’t working
@9J2LX9L 2wks2W
Yes, as long as these companies prove that what they're making is effective and can be made along a schedule and won't just be another F-35.
@3JZDMSDIndependent 2wks2W
Yes, for those companies that are pursuing entry to markets.
@9MKYNGJ 2wks2W
No, carbon capture is ineffective and remains a distraction from the real goal of preventing carbon emissions in the first place
@9MKXPVK2wks2W
Yes. I’m not a big fan of subsidies but I think this should be subsidized.
@9MK7LVX2wks2W
Only if it is solely used for the purpose of carbon capture technology.
@9MK7CF72wks2W
No, carbon capture is not as important as reducing emissions
@9MK75BXIndependent2wks2W
There should be more research done on whether carbon capture is beneficial or detrimental to the environment.
@9MK53KJ2wks2W
carbon dioxide plays a big part in climate change so yes we should be preventing it from entering the atmosphere.
@9MK2GPM2wks2W
Yes, but carbon capture is less important than other new technologies to reduce emissions, because it is way more expensive to remove one ton of CO2 than to not emit that ton.
@9MJW73F2wks2W
No, carbon capture technologies are not as effective as companies are making them seem
@9MJQRL92wks2W
Yes, but only after nationalizing/abolishing the industries responsible for carbon emissions and beginning a full-scale transition to renewable energy
@9MJJC2VRepublican2wks2W
If carbon capture technology works, there needs to be a way to get rid of the carbon. If not, then one day its going to be released into the atmosphere
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
