Carbon capture technologies are methods designed to capture and store carbon dioxide emissions from sources like power plants to prevent them from entering the atmosphere. Proponents argue that subsidies would accelerate the development of essential technologies to combat climate change. Opponents argue that it is too costly and that the market should drive innovation without government intervention.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
@ISIDEWITH12mos12MO
Yes
@B47MKJT 1mo1MO
God made the planet and He is sovereign over ALL that occurs. Not any amount of restrictions or “environmentalism” will “save” the planet. Being responsible and caring for the earth while also being wise and realizing the natural resources at our disposal are for us to use.
@B4VB3F31wk1W
No, the government should be the ones to develop carbon capture technologies, the government should invest in planting more trees to capture carbon as well, and also increase spending for renewable energy and reforestation
@B3YW9621mo1MO
No, there doesn’t need to be more carbon capture, there needs to be more carbon release. Carbon dioxide is plant food. We are carbon based life forms. Carbon is an essential ingredient of life on earth and it does not need to be taken out of the system, there needs to be more put into the system.
@B2J3VBF3mos3MO
I don't think it should be Canada's responsibility alone. It is important however, to reduce emissions globally.
@B27F3VN4mos4MO
tax carbon emissions and then use THAT money to subsidize the carbon capture techonology companies
@B24KB2Q5mos5MO
The government should tax carbon emissions, and plant more trees to capture carbon
@9TYSP557mos7MO
Carbon capture is bolony they have been using this tech to get more oil from the ground for years, tax carbon emissions but have a policy in place so the company cannot pass the cost of carbon emission cost onto average people.
@9TLF4ZN8mos8MO
If it’s your mess clean it up, same goes here they can afford it if they cause the harm they pay the price. It’s pretty common sense no?
@9NR37C611mos11MO
Yes but this shouldn't be an alternative to net zero
@9N8VP9911mos11MO
No, instead provide subsidies to companies, researchers, or organizations developing proven solutions such as renewables and nuclear
@9MXJRLQ11mos11MO
No, carbon capture is a band-aid solution for a rapidly escalating global crisis. Startups in this industry would only waste tax-payer money that would be better spent actively fighting climate change and reducing overall carbon output.
@9FGSKLL 11mos11MO
No, instead provide incentives to companies that meet environmental standards set by the government
No, develop green technologies & green infrastructure instead.
@9SLJBJV8mos8MO
No, and add tax deterrents for companies that aren’t doing it
@9RTLWCPIndependent9mos9MO
Yes, maybe not subsidies, but some kind of incentive
@9RC2NJV9mos9MO
No. All companies should be using CC by a set date, and should he penalized after this date if they are not.
@9RC2QHKNew Democratic9mos9MO
No, and charge/tax companies that previously accepted subsidies after being investigated on the autheticity of their stats.
@9RBVFQQ9mos9MO
No, it is better to focus on not emitting the carbon in the first place. Invest in that.
@9QZCYDN10mos10MO
Either really small ones or not at all. The focus should be on replacing fossil fuels.
@9PSJ5S810mos10MO
Only under strict audit and only if the money stays in Canada.
@9P8NRFMNew Democratic 11mos11MO
Yes, but put more effort into lessening the use of fuel that produce high carbon emissions.
@9ZK3JNS6mos6MO
Yes, and focus on a transition to nuclear energy and sustainable forestry to reforest 2 trees for every tree cut down.
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
