BLUE
Profile banner
GV
Gaia Vince
@wanderinggaia.bsky.social
Writer, broadcaster, author (NOMAD CENTURY; TRANSCENDENCE; ANTHROPOCENE bit.ly/3QR898d) Human-Earth system science toot.community/@WanderingGaia
2.4k followers668 following330 posts
GVwanderinggaia.bsky.social

I’m not against £22 billion for CCS development, but this is poor policy. Rather, government regulation should force carbon pollution phase out from power stations and industry over X years, compelling industry to invest in CCS or switch to alternatives. Public funds should subsidise carrots

2

Bbashthebox.bsky.social

It's also spending 22bn on the most unreliable tech. If we spent that £22bn on the low hanging fruit - decarbonise our houses - that's a massive improvement to our lives, a vast boost to the economy, and a long-term permanent decrease in emissions

0
GVwanderinggaia.bsky.social

No question that we will need CCS. But industry that most benefits from it (fossil fuel companies) have deep pockets and an obligation considering culpability in this whole situation

1
Profile banner
GV
Gaia Vince
@wanderinggaia.bsky.social
Writer, broadcaster, author (NOMAD CENTURY; TRANSCENDENCE; ANTHROPOCENE bit.ly/3QR898d) Human-Earth system science toot.community/@WanderingGaia
2.4k followers668 following330 posts