Comments on: Let’s Discuss Carbon Dioxide Removal — It’s Not A Silver Bullet to Save Earth https://www.frackcheckwv.net/2021/10/29/let%e2%80%99s-discuss-carbon-dioxide-removal-%e2%80%94-it%e2%80%99s-not-a-silver-bullet-to-save-earth/ Just another WordPress site Wed, 14 Feb 2024 02:06:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Comment Link https://www.frackcheckwv.net/2021/10/29/let%e2%80%99s-discuss-carbon-dioxide-removal-%e2%80%94-it%e2%80%99s-not-a-silver-bullet-to-save-earth/#comment-415449 Comment Link Sun, 31 Oct 2021 00:59:20 +0000 https://www.frackcheckwv.net/?p=37651#comment-415449 SOURCE ~ West Virginia Center on Climate Change (WV3C) Thank you for reading this article on “Carbon Removal and More: What Lies Ahead for these Climate Solutions?”. Please submit your questions or comments to: info@wvclimate.org A link to a program recording is now available at: https://wvclimate.org/ SOURCE ~ West Virginia Center on Climate Change (WV3C)

Thank you for reading this article on “Carbon Removal and More: What Lies Ahead for these Climate Solutions?”.

Please submit your questions or comments to:

info@wvclimate.org

A link to a program recording is now available at:

https://wvclimate.org/

]]> By: Carbon Removal Webinar https://www.frackcheckwv.net/2021/10/29/let%e2%80%99s-discuss-carbon-dioxide-removal-%e2%80%94-it%e2%80%99s-not-a-silver-bullet-to-save-earth/#comment-415411 Carbon Removal Webinar Fri, 29 Oct 2021 16:29:03 +0000 https://www.frackcheckwv.net/?p=37651#comment-415411 SELECTED QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS ON THE CARBON REMOVAL WEBINAR <strong>Jane Patton:</strong> The first IPCC pathway actually makes "little to no use of CCS", as the one most sure to get keep us under 1.5 degree warming, and in fact specifically recommends hesitation on CCS because of the limitations of the technology and the delay in scalability and lack of universal applicability. Why are we focusing on that pathway instead of the others? Why are we not starting with an urgent transition to renewable energy over the next 5-10 years? <strong>Randi Pokladnik:</strong> Bottom line is the best carbon removal is to NEVER release it in the first place. The Ohio River Valley is being proposed as the next big petrochemical hub/plastics cracker facilities too. Peer reviewed studies show that CCS will require more water on coal power plants, it will require MORE energy to run the CCS plants, it will require a massive pipeline network to move the carbon dioxide to the storage sites or oil fields. An explosion has already occurred in Alabama and people were sick from CO2. So this is feeling more like another false promise PR stunt to prop up the fossil fuel industry, not a solution. We should be placing $$$ in energy efficiency which supplies hundreds of local jobs and renewable energy. Failed projects of CCS are like the huge Gorgon plant in Australia. We only have ten years... the clock is ticking... time to move away from FF. <strong>sp gates</strong>: Isn’t this all just more greenwashing so the fossil fuel sector can keep pumping greenhouse emissions? Isn’t the SIMPLEST, CHEAPEST solution “leave it in the ground”? <strong>Randi Pokladnik:</strong> Have you seen the new report by the Ohio River Valley Institute? They would disagree with your economics on CCS. <strong>Jane Patton:</strong> If what we need to do is to reduce carbon emissions, why is the state of West Virginia poised to expand those emissions with projects like the Appalachian Storage Hub? Are you also working to rescind or prevent those permits to emit at the same time that you support CDR? If not, why not? SELECTED QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS ON THE CARBON REMOVAL WEBINAR

Jane Patton: The first IPCC pathway actually makes “little to no use of CCS”, as the one most sure to get keep us under 1.5 degree warming, and in fact specifically recommends hesitation on CCS because of the limitations of the technology and the delay in scalability and lack of universal applicability. Why are we focusing on that pathway instead of the others? Why are we not starting with an urgent transition to renewable energy over the next 5-10 years?

Randi Pokladnik: Bottom line is the best carbon removal is to NEVER release it in the first place. The Ohio River Valley is being proposed as the next big petrochemical hub/plastics cracker facilities too. Peer reviewed studies show that CCS will require more water on coal power plants, it will require MORE energy to run the CCS plants, it will require a massive pipeline network to move the carbon dioxide to the storage sites or oil fields. An explosion has already occurred in Alabama and people were sick from CO2. So this is feeling more like another false promise PR stunt to prop up the fossil fuel industry, not a solution. We should be placing $$$ in energy efficiency which supplies hundreds of local jobs and renewable energy. Failed projects of CCS are like the huge Gorgon plant in Australia. We only have ten years… the clock is ticking… time to move away from FF.

sp gates: Isn’t this all just more greenwashing so the fossil fuel sector can keep pumping greenhouse emissions? Isn’t the SIMPLEST, CHEAPEST solution “leave it in the ground”?

Randi Pokladnik: Have you seen the new report by the Ohio River Valley Institute? They would disagree with your economics on CCS.

Jane Patton: If what we need to do is to reduce carbon emissions, why is the state of West Virginia poised to expand those emissions with projects like the Appalachian Storage Hub? Are you also working to rescind or prevent those permits to emit at the same time that you support CDR? If not, why not?

]]>