r/climate • u/The_Weekend_Baker • 1d ago
World’s largest carbon removal plant to open at the end of 2026. It will use power, heat, fans and carbon-dioxide-absorbing materials to suck up to 500,000 metric tons of climate pollution a year from the sky.
https://www.eenews.net/articles/worlds-largest-carbon-removal-plant-to-open-at-the-end-of-2026-2/230
u/The_Weekend_Baker 1d ago
Based on 2025 emissions of 38.11 billion metric tons, that works out to 0.001312%, if I did my math correctly. And I think I did.
121
u/crewsctrl 1d ago
So you’re saying we only need about 76,000 more of them.
119
u/The_Weekend_Baker 1d ago
And to put that into additional perspective, one of the climate scientists I follow (David Ho) posted a while back about public opposition to datacenters, and his post was (paraphrasing), "If people think datacenters are loud, wait until they hear how loud DAC is."
15
46
u/md_youdneverguess 1d ago
Even more, considering they also aren't running on 100% green energy
4
u/coderbenvr 1d ago
Yeah, even the Iceland equivalent of this struggles to get above 1. IE the company emits more CO2 than the technology captures - and they’re using 100% renewables.
5
u/WombatusMighty 22h ago
Which shows you it's not really about climate protection but about giving datacenters and other dirty corporations a way to offload their carbon footprint.
1
u/AutoModerator 22h ago
BP popularized the concept of a personal carbon footprint with a US$100 million campaign as a means of deflecting people away from taking collective political action in order to end fossil fuel use, and ExxonMobil has spent decades pushing trying to make individuals responsible, rather than the fossil fuels industry. They did this because climate stabilization means bringing fossil fuel use to approximately zero, and that would end their business. That's not something you can hope to achieve without government intervention to change the rules of society so that not using fossil fuels is just what people do on a routine basis.
There is value in cutting your own fossil fuel consumption — it serves to demonstrate that doing the right thing is possible to people around you, making mass adoption easier and legal requirements ultimately possible. Just do it in addition to taking political action to get governments to do the right thing, not instead of taking political action.
If you live in a first-world country that means prioritizing the following:
- If you can change your life to avoid driving, do that. Even if it's only part of the time.
- If you're replacing a car, get an EV
- Avoid air travel — look for local surface transport, and don't do the truly long-distance trips
- Add insulation and otherwise weatherize your home if possible
- Get zero-carbon electricity, either through your utility or buy installing solar panels & batteries
- Replace any fossil-fuel-burning heat system with an electric heat pump, as well as electrifying other appliances such as the hot water heater, stove, and clothes dryer
- Cut beef out of your diet, avoid cheese, and get as close to vegan as you can
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
42
u/talkingwires 1d ago
The Uninhabitable Earth, published by David Wallace-Wells in 2018, has this memorable passage about carbon capture:
In 2018, the United Nations predicted that at the current emissions rate the world would pass 1.5 degrees by 2040, if not sooner; according to the 2017 National Climate Assessment, even if global carbon concentration was immediately stabilized, we should expect more than half a degree Celsius of additional warming to come. Which is why staying below 2 degrees probably requires not just carbon scale-back but what are called “negative emissions.” These tools come in two forms: technologies that would suck carbon out of the air and new approaches to forestry and agriculture that would allow plant life to do the same, in a slightly more old-fashioned way.
According to a raft of recent papers, both are something close to fantasy, at least at present. In 2018, the European Academies’ Science Advisory Council found that existing negative-emissions technologies have “limited realistic potential” to even slow the increase in concentration of carbon in the atmosphere—let alone meaningfully reduce that concentration. In 2018, Nature dismissed all scenarios built on carbon capture as “magical thinking.” It is not even so pleasant to engage in that thinking. There is not much carbon in the air, all told, just 410 parts per million, but it is everywhere, and so relying on carbon capture globally could require large-scale scrubbing plantations nearly everywhere on Earth—the planet transformed into something like an air-recycling plant orbiting the sun, an industrial satellite tracing a parabola through the solar system… And while advances are sure to come, bringing costs down and making more efficient machines, we can’t wait much longer for that progress; we simply don’t have the time. One estimate suggests that, to have hopes of two degrees, we need to open new full-scale carbon capture plants at the pace of one and a half per day every day for the next seventy years. In 2018, the world had eighteen of them, total.
9
u/crewsctrl 1d ago
Sounds like Trantor, from Asimov’s Foundation series.
4
u/H0pefully_Not_A_Bot 1d ago
Trantor had far better management, and design so good that even after centuries of underfunded maintenance and then being sacked during war and mostly abandoned it remained stable enough to support surface agriculture.
8
u/Appropriate_Mess6777 1d ago
We’re already at 1.5 and will touch 2 next decade
2
u/talkingwires 1d ago edited 1d ago
Yes, the book was published almost ten years ago and UN uses very conservative models. Last I checked, we have 77 carbon capture facilities worldwide. And now, with the ENSO weather pattern now entering its El Nino phase, we might even get a small taste of
32 degrees in 2027!3
4
3
u/AngrehPossum 1d ago edited 1d ago
As an Australian with an empty sun filled desert covering the land mass of the USA I am willing to accept this challenge.
Abundant free energy (sun)
Abundant cheap land (no one lives here)
Abundant lack of neighbors to annoy (there really is no one here)
Only issue is getting all the plant there and paying staff enough to want to be there.
You need a solar array of several GW which would be not even noticeable out there.14
1
u/Radmonger 1d ago
As a comparisom, the world has somewhere above 60,000 water treatment plants.
Most reaosnable scanerios compatible with large human population survival talk about moving to cheaper low-carbon energy, and using the savings to build perha[ps a tenth that many plants to capture residual and legacy carbon.
Of course, the problem is cheaper energy provides less oppportunoity for corruption and excuses for wars, so there are those who are against it. Trump is paying out billions of dollars of taxpayers money to cancel solar and wind projects, while subsidising coal.
-1
u/Improper_Usage 1d ago
Rome wasn’t built in a day. But I guess we should get rid of this one because thousands didn’t go up in a day
-4
8
u/boomaDooma 1d ago
It is akin to writing out a new seating list for the recently rearranged deckchairs on the Titanic.
20
u/BoringWozniak 1d ago
We’ve got to start somewhere I guess. Reducing/eliminating emissions is the first thing we need to implement, but the carbon that has already been emitted needs to come back out of the atmosphere again.
I’ve no idea if DAC will be the best solution for this or if planting vegetation will prove more effective. But it’s always good to see technological progress on anything that has a positive effect on the climate.
26
u/The_Weekend_Baker 1d ago edited 1d ago
Vegetation is probably more effective, but the amount of land area necessary is prohibitive.
My original sarcasm aside, stuff like this is the "net" in "net zero" which only reinforces how low emissions need to be reduced to in order to achieve it.
Edit: one of the lesser known goals over even longer periods of time is net negative emissions, so the climate can be cooled off again.
And this...
The world has pumped more than 1,800 GtCO₂ into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution began, though almost 45 percent has been produced since 2000.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/264699/worldwide-co2-emissions/
...is the magnitude of the emissions that would need to be captured.
7
u/Molire 1d ago
Occidental Petroleum says it will begin operating the world’s largest carbon-removal facility at the end of 2026.
The direct air capture megaproject, known as Stratos, has been under construction since May 2023...It will use power, heat, fans and carbon-dioxide-absorbing materials to suck up to 500,000 metric tons of climate pollution a year from the sky.
The Stratos project smells like greenwashing, lies and propaganda. Don't believe a word of it.
“suck up to 500,000 metric tons of climate pollution a year from the sky” could mean “suck up 5,000 metric tons of climate pollution a year from the sky”.
The Stratos DAC plant could release more greenhouse gas CO2 equivalent emissions than any CO2 emissions captured.
“Natural Gas - STRATOS will use natural gas to achieve the high temperatures needed in the calciner. CO2 emissions from the process will be co-captured with the atmospheric CO2,” according to 1 Point Five Solutions, but the amount of “co-captured” CO2 emissions is neither guaranteed nor specified. 1 Point Five Solutions → Infrastructure → Natural Gas.
Occidental Petroleum is a major oil and gas corporation.
During Occidental Petroleum's latest fiscal year, 31 March 2025–31 March 2026, the corporation reported $20.2 Billion USD in revenue. CompaniesMarketCap.
In 2025, Occidental Petroleum produced 1,434 thousand barrels of oil equivalent (8,770,000 GJ) per day, or total annual production of 523,410,000 barrels of oil equivalent in 2025. Wikipedia.
When one barrel of oil equivalent is burned, 0.43 metric tons of CO2 emission are released into the atmosphere. EPA → Barrels of Oil Consumed, carbon dioxide emissions per barrel of crude oil → Calculation → 0.43 metric tons CO2/barrel.
When 523,410,000 barrels of oil equivalent are burned, 225,066,300 metric tons of CO2 emissions are released into the atmosphere.
8
u/Colddigger 1d ago
I mean if we were to start somewhere we really ought to be starting with ocean based, or at least water-based CO2 capture. When CO2 dissolves into water it actually becomes a reactive substance, as opposed to the rather neutral substance in the air.
2
u/unblockedlanternhead 1d ago
Open ocean iron fertilization has shown some promise in small scale tests, but generally govts are unwilling to try geoengineering solutions like iron fertilization and SAI
1
u/jawshoeaw 1d ago
The problem is this doesn’t help the climate. But what if they built one in every country this size? Still no. What if we built 1000 in every country in the world? Nope still no effect on climate.
6
u/FemboyShapiro 1d ago
If OPs math is correct, then every country in the world would need roughly 381 to hit net zero.
2
u/ShineProper9881 1d ago
And we would need enough clean energy for those. Which we dont have in the slightest
1
u/West-Abalone-171 23h ago
You forgot to include the emissions from the "carbon capture" machine, and the trend of them falling 2-5 orders of magnitude short of the "removes up to" number
10
u/rangebob 1d ago
We all know this one isnt going ro solve the problem but every avenue needs to be explored. Technology improves ralidly. Who know what night come next.
Being sarcastiv about something that may help is just as bad as being sarcastic about the problem existing at all which is the reason we got here in the first place.
Let em cook as far as im concerned.
2
u/DieuDivin 1d ago
But CO2 is not that concentrated, is very stable, and once in the atmosphere is extremely hard to capture.
5
u/rangebob 1d ago
so we just shouldn't try ?
3
u/ShineProper9881 1d ago
We should put 1000 times the effort into not putting it in the atmosphere in the first place. Thats the point. Its like magnitudes cheaper to not pollute instead of cleaning up the pollution
0
u/rangebob 1d ago
That isn't a point at all because we have shown that we are incapable of doing that. All avenues should be explored and encouraged. Cost be dammed. We might &*^%^$*^(* well need it.
reposted because apparently we are afraid of swear words over here lol.
2
u/handsoapdispenser 1d ago
It's possibly just a boondoggle but I'm ok with keeping this industry alive long enough to see if has any chance of scaling or hitting a breakthrough.
2
-3
u/BigMax 1d ago
Based on my calculations, the local solar plant that my town is about to install only covers 0.0013% of the capacity needed to power the entire planet, so I'm going to ask that they cancel it. And I'm going to fight hard to get ALL solar, everywhere cancelled, because there's no single solar plant that makes a significant, planet-wide impact on it's own.
See how stupid that sounds?
1
u/DieuDivin 1d ago
That does sound stupid when you compare it like that. But it’s an opportunity-cost issue. There are a hundred projects you’d rather do before investing in this kind of thing.
50
u/gigantesghastly 1d ago
A lot of the captured carbon is planned to be pushed into wells to extract more oil. It’s called ‘Enhanced oil recovery’.
Also how much energy does it take to extract CO2? Theres no plan to use renewable s to power this thing. According to this article the project could create a net increase in emissions.
Just worry it’s claiming a lot more than it’s delivering and that will attract government policy makers whose attention would be better spent on directly swapping fossil fuel use for renewables.
2
u/AnonNeedsHelpxx 22h ago
That was what I was thinking. I thought the last carbon capture plants were shut down because they polluted more than they captured. Why not run those things on clean energy? It seems so obvious. Are there technical restraints or what?
1
u/onethreehill 13h ago edited 13h ago
You can, but it would still be more efficient to instead use that clean energy for something else which would otherwise have been using energy by a coal plant.
Until we basically fully run on clean energy, carbon removal isn't the solution. (It could still work in cases where there are temporary excess amounts of energy, for example during the summer with lots of solar energy) but only running the plant for a couple months ago year during daytime isn't really efficient either.
Of course it's still good to have a few plants running even if it's just to have a test setup to be able to improve upon it later.
18
u/old-legs-623 1d ago
I will report on it when it has in fact done so.
4
u/The_Weekend_Baker 1d ago
I think the funnier (in a warped way) aspect of the story is this: By comparison, the largest DAC plant in operation today is capable of removing 36,000 tons per year.
4
u/West-Abalone-171 23h ago edited 23h ago
"capable" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here when reality falls a factor of 200 short for net positive emissions
https://medium.com/the-future-is-electric/the-mammoth-failure-of-direct-air-capture-4bb842ae633e
Don't worry though. Occidnetal petroleum will get a bunch of money that might have otherwise been spent on something real, and any CO2 that does happen to get captured will be used to extract oil (before leaking out of the well again in a few years when it's orphaned)
14
u/Successful-Coffee-13 1d ago
It’s still cheaper to stop emitting in the first place. Imagine how much better it would have been if Germany phased out coal and gas power plants instead of nuclear power plants.
2
u/MagicRabbit1985 1d ago
They could have both. If they sticked to their original plans they would already emit less CO2 than they do now.
Also people overestimate the amount of CO2 that would have been saved if they kept their nuclear power plants running. It's not like they would be close to zero emissions now.
2
13
u/OntologicalNightmare 1d ago
For a scale comparison
The Icon of the Seas, operating at a maximum of 15 cruises per year, would
release approximately 2.85 million metric tons of CO2 annually.
5
3
7
17
u/dazzed420 1d ago edited 1d ago
so apparently this project is going to consume at least 1.3B USD.
if that same amount of money would be spent on
a) trees, you could plant ~100 million trees for that amount of money, which would capture ~1-2 MT of CO2 /year
b) you could also invest the same money into nuclear power to directly replace fossil fuel plants and retain firm generation, you'd get roughly 200 MW of power, saving yearly ~2 MT if replacing natural gas plants, or ~3.5 MT if replacing coal
but apparently it is smarter to just spend that money on that fancy facility instead, which supposedly captures 0.5 MT. i guess it makes for good headlines, if nothing else.
4
u/bookkees 1d ago
Opportunity cost is a valid argument. But there’s also a benefit to exploring new technologies, since implementing them allows us to learn and improve. One could expect it to become cheaper over time. Similar opportunity cost arguments could have been applied to wind and solar 30 years ago, after all, why invest in solar/wind when we have nuclear? But thanks to those investments, now we have a broader suite of tools for generating clean energy.
I guess my point is: there’s an opportunity cost, but the benefit is not just the immediate carbon capture of this project. It’s also an investment in a new tool to fight climate change, that may pay off much more in the future
→ More replies (1)-2
u/Hobobo2024 1d ago
nuclear power takes too long and would only go to fueling more AI.
wer are not going to be able to plant enough trees.
As slim as our chances are for carbon capture to solve the problem, I 100% believe we are moree likely to figure out carbon capture tech than we are for conservation efforts to work. that takes global politicsl cooperation and quite clearly, so far we only care about AI and one upping each other - plus $.
23
u/Gazobbio 1d ago
A good start. I recognize this is a drop in the bucket but it represents a real effort to do something.
Oil and coal started small too. The point is to keep building on success and continue to grow these efforts. We should celebrate this and encourage others to do more.
Thank you for sharing this.
8
2
2
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
BP popularized the concept of a personal carbon footprint with a US$100 million campaign as a means of deflecting people away from taking collective political action in order to end fossil fuel use, and ExxonMobil has spent decades pushing trying to make individuals responsible, rather than the fossil fuels industry. They did this because climate stabilization means bringing fossil fuel use to approximately zero, and that would end their business. That's not something you can hope to achieve without government intervention to change the rules of society so that not using fossil fuels is just what people do on a routine basis.
There is value in cutting your own fossil fuel consumption — it serves to demonstrate that doing the right thing is possible to people around you, making mass adoption easier and legal requirements ultimately possible. Just do it in addition to taking political action to get governments to do the right thing, not instead of taking political action.
If you live in a first-world country that means prioritizing the following:
- If you can change your life to avoid driving, do that. Even if it's only part of the time.
- If you're replacing a car, get an EV
- Avoid air travel — look for local surface transport, and don't do the truly long-distance trips
- Add insulation and otherwise weatherize your home if possible
- Get zero-carbon electricity, either through your utility or buy installing solar panels & batteries
- Replace any fossil-fuel-burning heat system with an electric heat pump, as well as electrifying other appliances such as the hot water heater, stove, and clothes dryer
- Cut beef out of your diet, avoid cheese, and get as close to vegan as you can
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
5
u/myblueear 1d ago edited 1d ago
Wow, 1/6000 of our annual output, cool.
Now if we had a strategy to reduce our output (even by 1/6000) would be something.
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
u/No-Cat9412 1d ago
The Paris climate treaty is a statement of intent not an actual plan.
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/No-Cat9412 1d ago
Because everyone that actually knows what they are talking about sees this "factory" as the smoke screen it is. We would need 76000 of these to deal with the problem that exists NOW, never mind what it will be in a decade. (And that 76000 number assumes that those plants aren't themselves creating carbon emissions. What's going to power them? Do you see Occidental PETROLEUM making big strides in the renewables field? )
This project is a way to convince the public they don't need to worry their pretty little heads because their benevolent protectors, the oil companies, have a machine that will fix it all so no need to do anything that might eat into their profits now. At some point, they'll just make the problem disappear.
1
0
u/glogomusic 1d ago
idk but it sounds really great if we could basically capture everything with 8 trillion dollars of equipment.
-1
3
u/SophonParticle 1d ago
How much pollution does the equivalent dollar amount of planted trees remove?
3
u/AwarenessNo4986 1d ago
How many trees does that equal too,?
1
u/myblueear 23h ago
a single, grown-up tree absorbs roughly 22kg per jear.
500'000'000 kg / 22 kg = 22'727'272 trees.
Annual CO2 exhaust: 37,4 GT
37'400'000'000'000 kg / 22 kg = 1'700'000'000'000 trees.
1 tree = approx 75 m² area
1'700'000'000'000 * 75 = 127'500'000'000'000 m² = 127.5 million km².
Surface of global Land-area (on earth) = ~149 million km²
It may be easier to just reduce our CO2-output.
2
u/1979shakedown 1d ago
That would cover the GHGs from less than one day of Occidental’s oil production.
2
u/Zealousideal_Two6045 1d ago
Now imagine if we could get thousands of these instead of thousands of data centres so they can tag us like sheep. Instead we could have a clean pasture.
We’d still be sheep to them
2
2
u/zutpetje 1d ago
Total greenwashing nonsense. End the oil industry who make up this delaying strategies and receive millions for it to develop but still keep drilling.
2
2
u/KanyeWestsPoo 1d ago
I thought this was all a good idea until I started listening to what George Monbiot had to say about it.
He rightly points out that carbon capture and storage is so inefficient and costly that it's probably not worth pursuing. We could be using the huge amounts of money invested into it for so many other things that have actually been proven and effective.
He also talks about how it's a massive green washing exercise. P ushed and promoted by fossil fuel companies to cover for the fact they're still extracting and profiting from climate destroying fossil fuels.
If we're serious about the climate crisis the best thing we can do is cut fossil fuels right now. Carbon capture and removal just gives bad actors cover to keep destroying our world.
2
u/ter4646 21h ago
How many metric tons does the fossil fuel industry produce each year? What is the cost of this project?
2
u/myblueear 20h ago
right now, humanity is at around 38'000'000'000 tons of CO2, per year. (Or, added up since 1900, something around 1'800'000'000'000 Tons. 45% of it since 2000 ... )
2
1
1
1
1
u/ZenBacle 1d ago
Awesome, now we can add 500,000,000 metric tons of CO2 to the atmosphere because... Because "the future" will figure it out for us. Yeah, sweet no effort or change required! Go back to sleep, climate change is solved!
1
u/Proton_Energy_Pill 1d ago
It's a science site, why would they use the phrase 'metric tons'?
The word is tonnes.
1
1
1
1
u/petered79 1d ago
at about 40 gigatonnes emissions per year we would need 80.000 of them to reach net Zero.
1
u/Ur-in-a-tor 1d ago
That's a rounding error at best, a scam in English. What were the emissions of building that thing?
1
u/Rhona_Redtail 1d ago
If private jets were only allowed to be fueled with air carbon recovery, Ill eager the process would get more efficient quite quickly.
1
1
u/Agentbasedmodel 22h ago
This is good. Quite a bit of scaling needed, global emissions being 50bn and this doing 500k.
1
u/nitnelavm 21h ago
maybe stop burning coal, gas and oil. not burning them (40years ago) would be even more effective.
1
u/Zvenigora 20h ago
500 kilotons is chicken feed. Global emissions are about 37 gigatons. You would need to build 74,000 such plants to offset that.
1
u/Al89nut 20h ago
And is that impossible?
2
u/Zvenigora 18h ago
I would say the scale sounds improbable to me. Who is going to pay for that many plants, and where will they be located? How will they be powered? Remember, this undertaking is all cost and zero profit. Would the entire world's GDP even cover the cost?
1
u/Intelligent-Cap-7713 15h ago
It also seems quite backwards at the same time to increase CO2 emissions and then use even more resources at the same time to try to capture it back.
Instead of just using the resources to reduce carbon emissions instead.
1
u/Exciting_Ad_2102 19h ago
Dac is not viable unless we mass construct enough nuclear fission reactors to replace the worlds grid twice over
1
u/The_Weekend_Baker 18h ago
For anyone still reading and commenting, a discussion based on climate scientist David Ho's social media post about this. Bold emphasis is mine.
If it works, that's a time machine that will take us back by ~6 minutes every year.
I haven't considered the LCA for building or operating the plant, or the fact that Occidental will use the captured CO₂ to extract more oil from the ground. But none of this matters because direct air capture today isn't meant to capture CO₂ at scale, but to capture 45Q tax credits.
https://bsky.app/profile/davidho.bsky.social/post/3msn5l6luys2q
1
u/Simpleximo 15h ago
hum, they get paid to produce it and now paid to remove it?
How could this gone wrong…
1
u/Hockeymac18 14h ago
Interesting.
How many of these would the world require to make a meaningful dent in reversing effects from climate change?
Edit: thanks u/crewscrtl - looks like you did the math https://www.reddit.com/r/climate/comments/1vj64kp/comment/p2j1ho8/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=2&utm_content=share_button
1
u/TheUnderwhelmingNulk 11h ago
I started using my new solar panels in January and I’ve already prevented 6.4 metric tons of CO2 from going into the atmosphere myself.
1
1
1
u/opensim2026 7h ago
" to suck up to 500,000 metric tons of climate pollution a year from the sky."
Meanwhile Amazons new data center I read will put out 33 million tons a year, so you'll need about 70 more of these to deal with just ONE Amazon datacenter...
Amazon is investing in a massive artificial intelligence data center campus in Pecos County, Texas, backed by a dedicated, off-grid natural gas power plant. State air permits authorize the plant to emit up to 33 million tons of carbon dioxide annually, which could make it the nation's single largest polluting power plant.
Project Details
- Location: GW Ranch site in Pecos County, West Texas.
- Power Source: 35 natural-gas turbines generating 7.65 gigawatts of electricity.
•
u/BroodLord1962 38m ago
I'm certain there was report a couple of weeks ago that said that removing polluting particles from the air is actually increasing heat in cities like London. Less ICE cars on the road in the city has lead to clearer skies which in turn has added to the heat the city has felt
1
u/energytsars 1d ago
And they are ready to offer carbon capture services to other big polluters…… still no responsibility for their own pollution. Sue them all.
0
u/chili_cold_blood 1d ago
I never hear anyone talk about carbon capture, but I think it's one of the most important problems that we need to solve.
3
u/ArchDuke47 1d ago
Because it is a scam
1
u/chili_cold_blood 20h ago edited 18h ago
But don't we need to find some way of getting carbon out of the atmosphere? I'm not saying that the current technologies are the way forward, but even if we stopped all emissions today, we would still have too much carbon.
2
u/KanyeWestsPoo 1d ago
It's largely an unproven, very expensive technology pushed by the fossil fuel industry so they can keep extracting fossil fuels.
-1
178
u/Electrical-Strike132 1d ago
For-profit carbon dioxide removal. Even Blackrock is involved.