How does this argument make sense? Why is producing energy inherently bad if it doesn't put carbon into the atmosphere?
Because it costs money.
Just not polluting in the first place is cheaper.
Nuclear is probably an important part of the future energy mix but now we discussed using nuclear energy to remove carbon from the atmosphere and I believe that would be a huge waste of resources compared to just not putting the carbon in the atmosphere in the first place.
Carbon capture is a scam.
We should be pouring a huge amount of money into nuclear fission right now, it's the most straightforward way toward a zero target, and repetition/scale with large series of identical reactors and streamlined regulatory oversight will hopefully make it cost competitive with fossil fuels.
I've got nothing against carbon capture technology in principle, but it's not a solution that will let us continue releasing carbon into the atmosphere at anywhere near the current rate.
But yeah, not emitting is cheaper in most cases, and you’re right, we can’t just slather carbon capture on our current situation and not change anything else.
Never encountered that. Maybe it exists but it's extremely rare and irrelevant.
> putting a substantial portion of GDP into building nuclear reactors and removing carbon from the atmosphere
Spending lots of money, to produce lots of energy, to solve a problem we created by using too much energy...
What people don't get is that environmentalists just want to solve the problem in the most cost effective way, and that is to stop destroying the environment we live in.
> having electricity, heat, running water, sewage treatment, shipping, transportation, and the internet.
Where in the Paris Agreement did you read we shouldn't continue having those things?