Gee, You Think

This is my shocked faceRather unsurprisingly, it appears that solar, wind, and hydro are way cheaper than carbon capture of fossil fuels.

Also, the technology for renewables is more mature, and less likely to be a source of rents for Wall Street ……… Oh, NOW I get it.

To avoid the worst impacts of climate change, the global community must rapidly transition to renewable energy while also expanding carbon dioxide removal—technologies that literally pull this greenhouse gas out of the atmosphere. Both endeavors will be costly, but a new study strongly suggests the U.S. should prioritize investing in renewable energy over expensive, energy-intensive direct air capture schemes.

The findings, published Monday in Communications Sustainability, show that renewable energy is far more cost-effective than direct air capture—a growing carbon removal strategy—at reducing atmospheric carbon. Across nearly every U.S. region through 2050, money spent deploying wind or solar power will deliver a greater combined climate and public health benefit than if it is spent on direct air capture, according to the study.

Yes, but they present less opportunities for looting by the banksters.

No nice things for you, the Wall Street guy has a mistress he needs to buy coke for.