Sorry, I'm not particularly interested in issuing messages to the world since I don't think it will listen to me 😅. I'm just an observer, and I observe that most people don't want to earn less money.
Replies
Whether or not you’re interested to be heard by people, you’ll have a way of living that will align with one or the other side of the argument. Burn all the coal we can find, it’ll be ok; or only burn what’s essential, because it may not be ok.
sep 1, 2025, 5:32 pm • 0 0 • view
there is a flaw in your argument. Even if you burn less coal or oil, it won't prevent your children or grand children to burn what you left to them. Meaning that the climate will be the same at the end....
sep 1, 2025, 5:36 pm • 0 0 • view
That’s up to them for sure? By that time carbon capture may have delivered. Who knows. I do know it’s unwise for my generation to exhaust our environment and leaving future generations with no choice. You got to understand that we are dealing with risks and risk mitigation.
sep 1, 2025, 5:40 pm • 0 0 • view
I don't know any realistic scenario where CO2 capture is a game changer (e.g. capturing 100 pm or more) but if you think it will be possible then it's not a real problem to burn fossil fuels now, because you'll be able to capture CO2 in the future (for instance by burning wood in power plants)
sep 1, 2025, 8:37 pm • 0 0 • view
CO2 capture typically refers to putting a big pipe on the end of a power station and pumping the gas underground hoping it won’t escape for a few thousand years. Even that is hard, let alone direct capture of CO2 from the air, and then there’s methane escaping from coal/oil exploration
sep 1, 2025, 8:44 pm • 0 0 • view
CO2 capture is considering essential for net zero, in combination with boring fast growing plants, as that sequesters some CO2 directly from the air. If you’re looking for an excuse to burn a boat load of fossil fuels, you’re asking the wrong person.
sep 1, 2025, 8:46 pm • 0 0 • view
Interesting point : if carbon capture is "essential',that means that we can't totally suppress the use of fossil fuels if we want to keep our way of life (if we don't want that, all problems are solved). So what will happen when fossil fuels will be exhausted?
sep 2, 2025, 3:06 am • 0 0 • view
Carbon capture is essential because it will slow us to burn *freshly grown* fuel; it will remove some CO2 from the atmosphere. Fossil fuel companies like to sell it as a solution to burning more coal and oil. But nobody has yet made it work at scale.
sep 2, 2025, 6:08 am • 0 0 • view
so maybe I don't understand, what's the capacity of carbon capture for you ? how many ppm do you hope we can sequestrate and what would be the effect on global temperature ?
sep 2, 2025, 6:16 am • 0 0 • view
We can sequester very little. Hopefully we can sequester what is seeping in inevitably. Some good numbers in here: What is carbon capture and can it fight climate change? www.bbc.com/news/science... That’s 18 months old and zero progress has been made on pushing carbon back under ground at scale
sep 2, 2025, 6:27 am • 0 0 • view
BTW I don't "want" an excuse or anything like that. I'm just observing the world and trying to understand it. And what I see makes me think that it's much more difficult to get rid of fossil fuels than to manage a few °C more.
sep 2, 2025, 3:09 am • 0 0 • view
I think you need to do a bout of reading on “a few degree C”. We’re almost at 1.5C, and we see deadly floods, heat, tornadoes, and cyclones, destroying billions of value, with insurance companies pulling out. “A few degrees” will make melting of glaciers permanent; no fresh water for many
sep 2, 2025, 6:19 am • 0 0 • view
really ? do you think all these things have significantly increased ? how much following you ? do you have a reference in IPCC report ?
sep 2, 2025, 6:21 am • 0 0 • view