No :)
Anyone who understands the concentration of CO2 in the air knows that these things are nothing but a PR stunt. You’re not going to pull enough out of the air to have any meaningful contribution; there’s just not a lot there to pull out. For all the harm it’s causing, CO2 makes up a tiny part of air composition, only about 0.04%.
These things are built for idiots who think the solution is as simple as “just run the air through a filter” and don’t grasp how much air there actually is, and how little there is to pull out.
That’s what the article is about. It also goes into biomass energy land use and the unknown effectiveness of grinding up rocks + laying them on farmland
Trees
Funny because the guardian insisted for years that carbon capture is our only hope, meanwhile China was the only country cutting emissions despite manufacturing everything anyone on earth demanded
No Canadian should be delusional enough to think their country’s forestry is even cutting carbon emissions. There’s a problem with first world energy use here
So your answer is “Yes”?
As the wikipedia article cites peer reviewed study (see study tab) that even though these kind of headlines make up only ~ 2 % of all hesdlines 44 % of them answer “yes”, and only 22 % answer “no” with the rest being indecisive.
Somehow you read all that and missed the first sentence.
Betteridge’s law of headlines is an adage that states: “Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.”
I think studies that look at the article’s response are going to give a very different outcome than the real world result. The heuristic exists because a lot of news is overhyped halfsense trying to generate clicks (or draw eyeballs in the pre-digital world). So even if the article suggests a yes answer, a no outcome is still probably more likely.
Great thing to say for redditors who have zero original thoughts and cannot contribute to any topic in depth
You realise the article itself suggests that the answer to the question is in fact “no”, right? (That is to say, it agrees with Betteridges’s law.)
And that carbon capture is often pushed by the oil industry as a magic bullet?
And that we often get headlines that look an awful lot like this that are trying to push an agenda which says “Yes, it’s fine, big oil has everything under control. No need for any climate action,” right?
I’m not sure why you’re being a jackass towards people who you likely agree with.
I’m not sure why you are so keen on insubstantial meta-commentary
I’m not sure why your so dismissive of it. It’s a heuristic that exists for a reason. Maybe you should read the wikipedia article linked above so you understand why that is.
You are being very tedious, and none of you have added a single thing to the discussion of this article. I put my thoughts on your journalism meme in other replies here anyways. I hope you try contributing something worth reading next time, although I won’t see any of your posts again thanks to this handy anti annoyance button right here 🚯
