• Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    They are still burning hydrocarbons, so basically the same.

    This is green washing at its finest.

    • vic_rattlehead@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes, but where the carbon comes from does matter. Burning fossil fuels is bad because it reintroduces previously sequestered carbon back into the atmosphere. If we can shorten the carbon cycle and simultaneously reduce the total amount of free carbon in the atmosphere, it’s still a net positive, even though we would still be burning hydrocarbons.

      Of course the less we burn, the better, and I’m sure the water resources used to make the “renewable” fuel are just as problematic and wasteful.

      • Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Burning fossil fuels is bad because it reintroduces previously sequestered carbon back into the atmosphere.

        Switching coal powder plants to burn wood would also shorten the carbon cycle from from millions of years to only decades…

        It is still adding co2 into the atmosphere when we should be removing it.

        Anything that adds more co2 to the atmosphere is not really helping.

        Being stabbed and slowly bleeding out may give you a few more minutes of life than being shot in the head but you are still dead years before you should be.

        • geogle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Burning sustainably grown plants is a net zero carbon addition to the environment. It’s not what you want, but it’s a step in the right direction.