Because this “one trial” was the literal best-case scenario, and it still sprung a leak that would cost more to fix than they could gain by banking carbon sequestration credits.
Yeah, obviously I’d much rather that R&D budgets got spent on things that might actually make a difference rather than new ways of kicking the can down the road for future generations to deal with.
You’re weirdly defensive about this idea. What’s up with that? Daddy got some investments in the fossil fuel industry?
It’s not new technology, for one. We’ve been using injection wells like landfills since the 1930’s because it’s cheaper than treating and disposing of wastewater safely.
Again, how does one failed trial invalidate the entire scheme?
Because this “one trial” was the literal best-case scenario, and it still sprung a leak that would cost more to fix than they could gain by banking carbon sequestration credits.
All I’m hearing is the first experiment failed, and y’all would rather give up than fix it.
Yeah, obviously I’d much rather that R&D budgets got spent on things that might actually make a difference rather than new ways of kicking the can down the road for future generations to deal with.
You’re weirdly defensive about this idea. What’s up with that? Daddy got some investments in the fossil fuel industry?
The whole article is weirdly dismissive of new technology.
It’s not new technology, for one. We’ve been using injection wells like landfills since the 1930’s because it’s cheaper than treating and disposing of wastewater safely.