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.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Political party:
@ISIDEWITH10mos10MO
Yes, and also increase spending for renewable energy and reforestation
@B3VGV2T 2mos2MO
To persuade someone to support carbon capture subsidies while increasing renewable energy and reforestation spending, highlight the potential for carbon capture to complement these efforts in specific sectors and situations, while emphasizing that it shouldn't replace them. A balanced approach can leverage carbon capture for industries with challenging emissions reductions, such as cement and steel production, while prioritizing renewable energy transition and natural climate solutions.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
1. The Role of Carbon Capture:
Complementary, not Replacement:… Read more
@ISIDEWITH10mos10MO
No, provide subsidies to renewable energy companies instead
@B3VGV2T 2mos2MO
A strong counter-argument to prioritizing renewable energy subsidies over carbon capture subsidies is that renewable energy technologies are already proven and cost-effective, while carbon capture remains expensive, inefficient, and carries risks of fossil fuel reliance. Subsidies for renewables drive down costs, increase deployment, and reduce emissions, while carbon capture projects are often energy-intensive and may not lead to significant reductions in overall emissions.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Proven Effectiveness and Scalability:
Renewable energy sources like solar and… Read more
@B584RDS 2mos2MO
Because the renewable energy companies are still generating tons of greenhouse gases. It needs to be better and good.
@9NF9B4MRepublican1yr1Y
No, but companies should be taxed for their carbon emissions and this will incentivize them to invest in carbon capture technologies and other ways of reducing pollution
“companies should be taxed for their carbon emissions”
Yes I agree with a carbon tax. Companies or the government can pay, please implement this technology.
I agree that their should be carbon tax for companies causing the most pollution. That will help bring the incentive like other sin taxes. Whether the US government pays and incentivize or companies foot the bill, I overall support the development and implementation of such technologies. Thank you for sharing your opinion.
@SenBR2003 1yr1Y
Yes, but only in tandem with supporting renewable energy production.
@GavinKuebler1yr1Y
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.
@B5XVFLK5 days5D
No. Carbon capture is a demonstrable scam. Phase out fossil fuel use instead, and nationalise any company that refuses to make the transition.
@kigyarx18Independent 1wk1W
Yes, at least currently, in its early stages of development if those "subsidies" are in the forms of industrial contracts.
@B5WDD242wks2W
Yes, and also boost spending for transitioning to renewable energy sources and reforestation efforts, and tax carbon emissions for large corporations
@B5W9TSD2wks2W
The issue of carbon dioxide emissions is not a relevant issue of modern day society. The current emissions caused by humans make up about 0.04% of the atmosphere. Additionally, CO2 is not a major greenhouse gas, as it does not hold onto heat for long periods of time.
No, provide subsidies to renewable energy companies instead, as well as investing in planting more trees to capture carbon as well.
@B5SW4PY3wks3W
No, the government should give more tax insensitives and subsidies to algae production as they capture far more carbon than trees.
@B5SSL9P3wks3W
No, provide subsidies to renewable energy companies instead and the government should invest in planting more trees to capture carbon instead
@9V7GKGC 1mo1MO
Yes in the case of early stage efforts at artificial photosynthesis and the like, hard no in the case of "clean coal" technologies
No, we should work to decarbonize 100% of our energy grid, these subsidies only facilitate the continued use of fossil fuels
@B5H9ZZ62mos2MO
Yes, even if there is not a collective way of carbon capture technologies for suburban, urban, and rural areas
@B2KW47V 5mos5MO
No. The government should not provide direct subsidies, but should instead use market-based policies like the creation and imposition of carbon markets to allow firms to do what they do best: constrained optimization.
@B2D3B6X6mos6MO
No, instead we should nationalize and fund renewable energy companies whilst promoting rewilding efforts in forestry.
@B28SZ6K6mos6MO
Yes, but the government giving tax credits and subsidies to any industry should be on a short-term basis, with continued renewal of funding being contingent on independent evaluations showing the effectiveness of the technology.
@MJStevens94Republican 7mos7MO
No, but provide subsidies and incentives to renewable energy companies while investing in reforestation.
Yes, but only small subsidies and only when such methods are proven to be effective, developed, and unique to that specific company.
No, Carbon capture is not an effective method of combating climate change. We should focus our efforts elsewhere.
@B52GDRS2mos2MO
Climate change is an absurd scam that challenges human intelligence. The only thing we need to do is minimize environmental damage and plant more trees.
@B4TYFKS2mos2MO
They should, but they should also, make it so they have to show results or where the money is going to. So, it does not get spent improperly.
@B4KLCSB3mos3MO
No because carbon capture will incentivize fossil fuel companies to increase drilling and will not have a big impact on mitigating greenhouse gas emissions
@B4FNL7M3mos3MO
supportive in principle as a potential tool, but with careful oversight to ensure it doesn't become an excuse to continue fossil fuel reliance; prioritize emissions reduction
@B4D6KHP3mos3MO
No, for the sake of low taxes, low national debt, checks and balances, weak government, federalism, and capitalism.
@9L4Z23BIndependent 3mos3MO
Yes, similar to wind power subsidies question, subsidies should have targeted benchmarks such a making CCT cheaper to manufacture & purchase, and reducing carbon emissions.
@B3ZYM5D4mos4MO
No, for the sake of freedom, capitalism, weak central government, federalism, and checks and balances, it should be for the companies to decide
@6L3XVCXProgressive 4mos4MO
yes but make new fraud laws for companies abusing the system with carbon capture fossil fuel schemes
@B3VGV2T 4mos4MO
Yes, government subsidies for companies developing carbon capture technologies are a common and debated policy tool, with arguments for and against them, and the US government has already implemented such policies.
Arguments for Subsidies:
Incentivizing Innovation and Deployment:
Subsidies can encourage private investment in carbon capture technologies, which are often expensive and require significant upfront investment.
Addressing Market Failures:
Carbon capture technologies may not be economically viable without government support, as the benefits of reduced emissions are often not fully… Read more
@B3N58Q34mos4MO
Yes, and provide incentives for the development of renewable energy, reforestation and conservation, energy efficiency, sustainable agriculture, and cap-and-trade systems
No, the government should only invest in companies if the government is getting a share of the company in return.
@B3CPJ2J4mos4MO
It should be paired with efforts to increase plant-cycling, so there's equal effort being put in both naturally and technologically
@B39MR8N4mos4MO
yes, and prioritize nuclear energy and reforestation efforts, to repair the environment, capture more carbon and ensure sustainablity of the forestry industry for future job opprtunities.
@B36SCTJ4mos4MO
Yes but we really don't need all of our money going towards something so advanced this early. I think the government and scientists are trying so hard to shoot us into the future that its ruining peoples lives every day by spending the tax payers money on some machine that we wont see for another 20 to 30 years.
@B2VNW8CIndependent5mos5MO
Encourage the citizens to plant trees, make more parks, and provide subsidies to renewable energy companies instead.
@B2M99345mos5MO
Subsidies disrupt the free market and prop up bad technology. We are too far in debt to continue spending money we don’t have.
@9ZQSCYW 6mos6MO
No, rely on voluntary community efforts and private companies to plant more trees and specialize in waste solutions.
@9ZWT9VB 7mos7MO
No, a mix of the options; tax carbon emissions instead, provide subsides to renewable companies instead, and the government should invest in planting more trees to capture carbon instead.
@9ZQPHSH7mos7MO
There are more ways to address carbon emissions such as, for jobs that don’t require onsite attendance to be remote workers. This saves fuel on commutes as well as the emissions of thousands of vehicles at 7-9am and 4-6pm everyday multiplied over a years time the emissions should see a drastic reduction.
@9ZJSZ8Z8mos8MO
The government should invest in clean energy, reforestation, nuclear energy, alternative fuels, and carbon elimination technologies
Yes, and increase spending for renewable energy, while also providing subsidies to renewable energy companies
@9SPG7LW10mos10MO
Capture alone is not enough. The subsidies should be given to those who actually reduce, not just track
@9RZH2BN11mos11MO
Yes, but they should be further incentivized with more money only AFTER these technologies are shown to work to prevent cash grabs with no return
@9RYF8B8Republican11mos11MO
No, because once you put it in the ground effects some of the natural resources in our environment like plants and gardens and it will one day resurface.
@9RYC28Y11mos11MO
Yes, carbon taxes should be set at the cost to recapture, and the government should directly purchase recapture credits on the open market using that carbon tax revenue.
@9RXS6Q5 11mos11MO
ARPA-E should see increased funding and should be able to provide help the DOE grant favorable loans for open sourced or shortened patent lengths.
Subsidies should be provided to directly combat climate change instead of being diverted to carbon capture which is often used by corporations for green washing and is much less effective than traditional climate action.
@8YM79T6 11mos11MO
No, companies should be taxed for their carbon emissions to incentivize them to invest in carbon capture technologies and other ways of reducing pollution
@9RH6KW311mos11MO
The government should provide more research grants before subsidizing companies because the technology isn't quite there yet.
@9RGLC4MIndependent11mos11MO
No. Funds are better served going to preventative measures than to allow pollution to continue and try to figure out ways to clean it up. Just like the ozone solution.
@9RF6B2811mos11MO
No, the government should impose more strict regulations for companies that don't meet a certain quota for carbon capture.
@9ZDHGHP8mos8MO
Yes, but build in accountability structures to make sure that there is only subsidy if and only if there are actually usable products or a provable pathway towards it accelerated by subsidies
@9YKJBNB8mos8MO
Adoption of clean renewable energy should be decided by the organization and through community action.
@9YGFNDFRepublican8mos8MO
How about we just plant more trees, and if we can use the carbon capture technologies to route it to trees so they can produce oxygen
@9Y9KMJ98mos8MO
I think the Government should only spend money on environmental issues for renewable energy sources.
@9Y4XKHR8mos8MO
Reforestation is important for wildlife inhabitants only, which is still a good thing and be promoted. Renewable energy companies however, I would not rely upon. If it isn't nuclear energy, it isn't worth the money or the effort. I absolutely agree with a tax on carbon emissions as a incentive to push corps into a much more safer energy alternative such as nulcear energy.
I don't think the government should give them money, but I do agree with what they are doing, I just think the government is spending quite a lot.
@9XFVWSY8mos8MO
Yes, and increase spending on nuclear power at the expense of all other power sources besides hydropower and solar power
@9XF8X2S8mos8MO
No, but not to say that it shouldn't be done. If it's so great, woke companies will buy it and they'll make their money that way.
@9XDGXGY8mos8MO
Tax carbon emissions, return that money to the citizens as a Dividend; subsidize renewables and reforestation.
@9XBX32C8mos8MO
No, use other methods of carbon capturing, like planting trees and providing subsidies to renewable energy companies instead
@9WV7C7J8mos8MO
Tax carbon emissions and redistribute national spending towards environmental efforts (not the military).
@9WSD8TGIndependent8mos8MO
No, remove existing regulations that limit or restrict enhancements to existing carbon emissions sources and release any restricted patents for the same
@9WJNTJF8mos8MO
The government issues a set amount of permits to companies that comprise a cap on allowed emissions that reduces each year, typically carbon dioxide. Companies that surpass the cap are taxed, while companies that cut their emissions may sell or trade unused credits. No accumulation of credits however!
@9W8WY7D9mos9MO
I am skeptical about this, although it is underground in a controlled and suitable area, is there enough research done? Is it truly better?
@9VJVL479mos9MO
No, but create a system that would continuously increase a CO2equivalent-added tax system which would allow credits for carbon capture.
@9VHQNY29mos9MO
Until we decide to devote resources to Nuclear fossil fuels are the best option. As a nature enthusiasts I do want some regenerative farming and reforestation effort, however I don’t think it should only be overseen by the government because odds are it will only hinder small farmers and reforestation efforts not the actual culprit of those that are damaging those environments.
No but let private or public companies make the technologies but make sure that safer practices are being followed and implemented
trees and carbon capture technologies aren't the way to go. Plankton produce most of the world's oxygen, not trees.
No, tax carbon emissions instead and the government should invest in planting more trees to capture carbon
@9T72CRS10mos10MO
No, these are much too expensive, subsidize renewable energy, stop subsidizing fossil fuels, and tax carbon instead.
@9T6J5XJ10mos10MO
Yes, but also increase spending for renewable energy and reforestation, and tax carbon emissions as well.
@9T56C2410mos10MO
I think they should do this but currerntly not a issue, and dont want our taxes to be raised beacuse of our nations economy at the moment, if it was okay then I prolly would say yes as long as it wouldnt be inpacting taxes that muh
@9T4H27210mos10MO
I do not believe that carbon capture technology is efficient enough to be viable-the money should instead go to trees, renewable energy, and public transport.
@9SGVKM510mos10MO
Only if it means giving more back to nature. Animals NEED spaces to live their lives too. Mother Earth isn't only about man
@9SGNYPW10mos10MO
No. Carbon capture tech. is effective and interesting on a small scale, but it will not come online in time to address climate collapse. The funds are better used elsewhere as most companies who are investing in the technology are the same oil companies which knowingly created the problem in the first place - they do not deserve further subsidies.
@9SFBMMY11mos11MO
Yes, in the short-term, but the goal should be for these companies to do this because it's the right thing to do, not because they get money from the fed.
@9SBLWPWRepublican11mos11MO
It depends on the situation with the economy at that time, its not important enough to me to be a priority
@9S644B811mos11MO
No, carbon capture technologies will never be as effective as a permanent switch to sustainable energy sources.
@9S59WDCConstitution11mos11MO
No, the government should invest in planting and harvesting forests in a 15-25 year growth/harvest cycle with the lumber being used to build government/military housing/buildings.
@n35w101Independent 11mos11MO
Yes, for R&D costs and if the publically-funded technology then becomes public domain, but not for private company operating costs.
@9S49TVC 11mos11MO
With the transparency of all information, we need the citizens to be aware of all results of all research and the positives and negatives on our communities.
@9S2TYBLIndependent11mos11MO
Yes, but the government should give minimal funding to maintain economic stability, while simultaneously allowing regulated innovation
@4TZ2PFJ 11mos11MO
No, They should not incentivize destructive behavior. They should focus or solving the causes of climate change.
@9RV2NCZ11mos11MO
No, the government should conduct research themselves rather than relying on private cooperations to do the right thing.
@9RQVWXF11mos11MO
No, private entities should research without tax dollars, then when technology is found the government can implement it then.
@9RQ9HSZ11mos11MO
Yes, but provided it does not take away any resources from more proven technology like renewable power
@SketchylazersIndependent 11mos11MO
No, unless our federal or state-level government can afford it and it is directed to a specific development project(s) that can be proven to be effective
@9RN3K8R11mos11MO
Yes, with a decreasing subsidy regime over time, and with subsidies tied not simply to capturing but also to lifecycle management and disposal once captured.
@9RK5ZLW11mos11MO
Well, since I am unsure as to what this technology is, I will abstain from commenting on the question.
@9RJN87D 11mos11MO
Yes. But we should be more focused on not putting the carbon in the air in the first place and changing our unsustainable lifestyles
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
