02-23-2023, 01:49 AM
I agree there’s a risk that science will be used as a fig leaf for continued pollution. It’s a bit like the tobacco industry introducing filters and menthol (or getting behind vapes) to suggest they’re making tobacco safer to use. I wouldn’t want the fossil fuel industry to use CCS and other means to justify doing business as usual.
On the other hand, there have been some scientific advances or interventions that did help to make things safer. Banning CFCs has helped to replenish the ozone layer and introducing unleaded petrol has reduced the developmental damage inflicted by lead.
But the scientific consensus appears to be that even eliminating emissions totally wouldn’t allow us to stop the rise in global temperatures (and unless science can offer alternatives, that’s not going to happen). We need to eliminate carbon dioxide that’s already in the atmosphere and only science can make that happen. There are currently DAC (Direct Air Capture) projects that are trying to scale up those efforts: see this for example.
On the other hand, there have been some scientific advances or interventions that did help to make things safer. Banning CFCs has helped to replenish the ozone layer and introducing unleaded petrol has reduced the developmental damage inflicted by lead.
But the scientific consensus appears to be that even eliminating emissions totally wouldn’t allow us to stop the rise in global temperatures (and unless science can offer alternatives, that’s not going to happen). We need to eliminate carbon dioxide that’s already in the atmosphere and only science can make that happen. There are currently DAC (Direct Air Capture) projects that are trying to scale up those efforts: see this for example.