Thread by @SteB777

I'd like to clarify, that when I used the acronym and term CCS here I meant all forms of capturing carbon, from just after burning, to removing from the atmosphere and then storing it. I regard all the acronyms and supposed methods, to be highly misleading and indeed false.

https://twitter.com/SteB777/status/1491017092094922757

What I mean by highly misleading and false, is they give the misleading and false impression that a specific technology actually exists, which could be implemented if possible. In reality all these methods are experimental, and don't really exist.

Yes it is possible to remove carbon and store it. What matters though is at significant scale. There is so far, no evidence at all, that any other these methods could realistically be used at any significant scale. So as far as I'm concerned, they are imaginary.

This is THE big problem of our time. Because specific terms are used, like Net Zero by 2050 exists, it misleads people to believe, that a feasible plan actually exists, and it is just a matter of agreeing to implement it.

This talk is the classic reification fallacy, when an idea becomes more real to people than the reality it describes. It gives the false impression that technologies exist, which could be deployed. When they don't exist.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reificati…

It's what science fiction writers do. They invent a word, terraforming, warp drive, etc, and then it assumed the thing exists or is possible, just because the word or acronym exists.

A good example is geoengineering. Because the term exists, the people wrongly assume that such a methodology actually exists and is feasible.

So I just mean any possible means of removing significant amounts of CO2 from atmosphere, to chimney tops, to anywhere in the atmosphere. Not a particular description of a proposed method of carbon removal.