You can vote me down as much as you want. You still have no clue of chemistry - or anything else you’re babbling about. Morons.
Comment on New York Startup Builds Fridge-Sized Machine That Can Turn Air Into Gasoline
b_tr3e@feddit.org 19 hours agoThere is no such thing as “carbon neutral”. Nor is there a problem with carbon. You’re talking about carbon dioxide which is as close to carbon as table salt is to chlorine.
b_tr3e@feddit.org 15 hours ago
tyler@programming.dev 12 hours ago
How about you go argue with the scientists calling it carbon neutral. My wife literally works in the field. It’s called carbon neutral.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 11 hours ago
You’re deliberately ignoring the fact that in vernacular terms, “carbon” is used to refer to “carbon dioxide” in contexts where the meaning is obvious.
People using the term that way aren’t “morons” with “no clue about chemistry.” They’re just using a commonly-understood shorthand for saying “carbon dioxide.” They understand perfectly well that carbon dioxide has a molecular structure of CO2. You’re being willfully obtuse.
Also, while there’s a commentary to be made about corporate greenwashing using phrases like “carbon neutral” and “net zero” to mask their true impacts on the environment, there certainly is such thing as “carbon neutral,” and it absolutely is a scientifically useful term.
Going for a walk is a carbon neutral activity, unless you happen to fart. Planting trees to compensate for burning fossil fuels is not carbon neutral, although it may meet the regulatory definition required of corporations to use the term. That doesn’t mean the concept itself is mythical.
Planting trees or sowing a wildflower meadow is carbon-negative. While that can’t displace emissions from regularly burning fossil fuels, it might neutralize the carbon-positive processes of manufacturing a bicycle, meaning riding your bike to work might also be carbon neutral.
A circular-process that only emits as much C02 as it removes from the atmosphere is, by definition, carbon-neutral. And rejecting novel processes solely because the concept didn’t exist previously is nothing short of dogmatism.