Hacker News Reader

Scientists and economists are dime a dozen, they have to sing for their supper. For a few thousands dollars, scientists have written about benefits of smoking, lead is a gift from God, and tens of thousands of toxic substances, food additives, etc.

Carbon capture is fraud. You can EASILY stop carbon emissions by switching to EVs, which are cheaper to buy and operate. Instead Govts want to spend trillions on top the $7T dollars/year subsidies to help oil companies recover more oil.

The COP summits are held in fossil fuel countries and discuss carbon capture.

Shell Is Looking Forward The fossil-fuel companies expect to profit from climate change. I went to a private planning meeting and took notes: https://archive.is/15Dj4

Edit: Adding abound's comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50044917. The book is Merchants of Doubt.

> Carbon capture is fraud.

Planting and growing trees is a form of carbon capture and it is one that has worked in Earth's history to bring CO2 levels down over the last millions of years from 7000ppm during the Cambrian Age to less than 700ppm.

You already know why that’s a confusing argument because you included the time scale yourself, but to say the obvious: I think we probably need to go a bit faster than “millions of years”.

It took nature millions of years to go from 7000ppm to under 700ppm. But we are talking a diff of only about 100ppm. Not cutting down the rainforest or raising a forest of that scale in some desert does seem like a positive contribution.

Another good idea would be to mandate working from home for everyone that reasonably can do so. During Covid I've only measured about 300ppm as the bottom baseline, while nowadays I do not measure lower than 400ppm. (Co2 measuring devices are fairly cheap and good to have in your office, as high Co2 affects your ability to think clearly. Without opening a window and having just one person inside Co2 easily climbs to about 3000ppm within a few hours just from your breathing.)

To capture 10% of daily emissions we need to plant like 20 million trees per day.

Planting trees as "carbon offsets" has been a hugely profitable rort

The idea that we can lock up land, forever, planted in trees to offset our consumption is blissfully naive

In New Zealand large swatches of land are being taken out of production, for a onetime big payment

It neglects two things:

1. Trees burn. Forests left untended for years choke with fuel and then catastrophically burn releasing all that carbon

2. We need the land. Future generations, this generation in a few years, will not be sympathetic to the vast swatches of unproductive land (that due to 1. above create costs)

We must stop producing carbon. It will mean many obscenely rich will be downgraded to wealthy. And the prospect of that is enough to burn the world

To copy a previous comment of mine:

Carbon capture is physically unable to be as effective as we need it to be. To an approximation, growing a tree is able to capture as much carbon as burning the wood from that tree. If most of our released carbon came from burning wood, we would just need to re-grow that amount of wood (unfortunately it's not even that simple, as the soil stores carbon long term in a way that just growing the tree doesn't capture, and is also released over time when old growth forests are cut down). Instead, the carbon we're burning comes from processes which efficiently concentrated the carbon from plants and microorganisms over millions of years to create coal, oil, and gas.

Carbon capture technology would have to artificially replicate these millions-of-years-long processes, and do it on a scale of years to decades. The scale of carbon capture we need is entirely unfathomable, requiring processes that don't exist, because they have to work against entropy itself.

Carbon capture at the point of burning fossil fuels to abate further emissions might be economical. Capturing already released carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (concentration of ~0.04%) is a fiction pushed by fossil fuel companies to muddy the debate and distract from the urgency of immediately stopping the burning of fossil fuels.

That reads like defeatism. Just because you think it is not effective enough is no reason to not give it a try. We won't be stopping to burn fossil fuels. Just like we won't be stopping war and have world peace.

I think it's more productive to not entertain wild fantasies and be realistic about what can be done.

EVs don't "easily stop" emissions in the US, since the American grid today is powered about 43% by natural gas and 15% by coal. Converting those sources has to happen too.

> Converting those sources has to happen too.

True, but the overall carbon reduction in owning an EV over its lifetime is still leagues lower; "Production-weighted average carbon footprints are 183 g CO2e/mi for BEVs; 351 g CO2e/mi for PHEVs; 445 g CO2e/mi for HEVs; and 521 g CO2e/mi for ICEVs." from [0] which does take into account the carbon-emitting percentage of the electrical grid.

Also, see Figure 4[1] in the study which states "Results demonstrate that, even under unfavorable conditions, BEVs still have a 30% lower life cycle carbon footprint."

0: https://www.nature.com/articles/s44458-025-00032-4

1: https://www.nature.com/articles/s44458-025-00032-4/figures/4

Yes

Emissions displacement is healthier for where humans actually live, but they do also reduce emissions over their lifetime. you and others can work on improving that further at the other parts of the stack

The claim was that EVs "stop" emissions and I believe we've corrected that. At no point did I claim EVs don't reduce emissions.

Thanks for the tip on what to work on. You too can work on other parts of the stack. And you can even improve the "vehicle" end of the stack, to which it sounds like you confine your actions, by moving around less, and when moving around, not hauling one or two tons of "car" with you. This can be accomplished by, for example, moving close to work (or only working close to home), living only in areas with good public transit, and/or bicycling everywhere -- all of which I did for 30 years, so I know it's possible. (edit: saved a bunch of money too)

And once we can get Trump and the Republicans, who have been consistently, aggressively, and in some cases fighting against both profitability and common sense, squashing attempts to solarize and trying to bring back the dirtiest coal they can, out of office, that will become much, much easier.

Solar panels are now vastly cheaper and more effective than they were even a few years ago. Replacing the whole US grid won't happen overnight, but once the government is actually expending effort to move in that direction, rather than clawing in the other direction by its fingernails, it will move fairly quickly.

The headline may be sensationalized but the memo you link (thank you) is plenty damning on it's own. It's under 2 pages and anyone can read it. The memo quite clearly understands that Exxon has made a lot of investment in carbon resources and is entirely centered around getting the value from those resources and fighting the necessary political battles along the way.

I would not celebrate this work, it's typical corporate boss-pleasing. It's not some exhortation towards clean energy.

> The memo, as linked in the OP, is here, and is worth reading, as it’s incredibly far from the sensationalized headline:

Having read both the memo and article, maybe there is a language barrier here, but how is it "incredibly far from the sensationalized headline"?

Maybe this comes down to how one defines "deception", but I have a hard time seeing it not apply here and don't see any hyperbole, overpromising or inaccuracy in the title given the memos writing. Certainly not "incredibly far", even if we split hairs on what raises to being "deception".

They are, unfortunately, being undermined by politics. I know someone who works on carbon capture facilities whose projects are being canceled because the incentives are being destroyed by the current presidential administration.

Oil and gas companies strongly lobby for Republicans they know will remove any incentive for them to need to worry about the environment.

> Have they also been engaging in the science in good faith, and genuine intent that… in a world where climate action is desired, and net emissions are something to optimize for, they can anticipate this by genuinely funding research, and having their own research projects already underway that can address anticipated challenges? Also absolutely true.

This is a claim that is very contrary to the prevailing view. If you wish others to be persuaded by this claim, I recommend that you provide some evidence for it, because on their own your statements are unconvincing.

Self-deception is the first thing you must do to work for ExxonMobil and believe yourself, in 'good faith', to be working for the good of all.

> I can’t speak for, say, lobbying efforts.

Even easier to deceive yourself if you blind both eyes.

Just what do you think the world would look like if these companies—working against our collective “good”, apparently—folded up their operations tomorrow without successors?

A false dichotomy that reveals a critical lack of imagination.

> collective “good”

Privatized gains, public losses. Surely this is known to you? Compare this to how Norway distributed its bounties.

The US and Exxon could have been a leader of the green transition starting in the 1970's, when everyone figured this out. With a few things breaking differently, we would have been.

We'd have had the absolute edge on the solar/battery transition.

Instead, precisely because of decades of deceptive lobbying, deindustrialization, bribes, and outright crimes, we're coasting far behind China's industrial policies.

You don't get the accolades if you do your research into a corporate black hole created by NDA's. The study may as well not have ever happened at all. Science that isn't open is just contributing to the Machiavellian cycle of amoral corporatic behavior. Get back to me when this research doesn't come to light >50 years later as part of discovery in a court case.

> But the scientists on the ground getting accused of the “deception” are some of the smartest, most caring, and highest-integrity people I’ve met.

This is a strawman (and a weirdly strong appeal to emotion for unclear reasons).

The claim is that their scientists were loudly saying internally their PR campaigns and climate claims were false and contrary to their findings. Executives read these memos and chose to do these anyways.

For instance:

> The new disclosures in the Massachusetts case add to the evidence with excerpts from a deposition by an Exxon scientist who worked on the program.

> Asked whether a 2018 press release, which said Exxon anticipated “10,000 barrels of algae biofuel per day could be produced by 2025,” was misleading, the scientist said “yes,” adding, “All the clauses in there are patently false.”

edit: the single memo that you linked (actually one of many the article is discussing) is not supposed to be some smoking gun, it's useful to dispel any idea that there's a reasonable claim of ignorance on Exxon's part, and the date is especially notable: 1988. Basically any PR, legal, and lobbying work for at least 38 years is suspect because of what they actually knew.

Folks say cigarette companies are covering up that cigarettes cause cancer but the Tobacco Institute scientists I've met are funny, charming, and boy can they cook.

I don't see how personal anecdotes about people you've met stand up to evidence. When you say, "the scientists on the ground getting accused of the “deception” are some of the smartest, most caring, and highest-integrity people I’ve met.", it looks like standard victim rhetoric - I mean, what an amazing group of people!

> research into carbon capture and other mitigations a top corporate priority

Do you have evidence? Evidence in the OP says otherwise:

"The documents include some statements which, according to the attorney general’s office, show Exxon knew that technology was also unlikely to present a scalable solution to cutting emissions.

A 2014 presentation on Exxon’s carbon capture portfolio included a slide listing challenges to reaching commercial scale. It noted widespread deployment would require a “massive investment” and an eventual storage rate “comparable to current oil and gas production.” It said costs were high and there were no market-based incentives."

Also, where are the results from this top priority of some of the largest companies in the world, with all these good-natured earnest scientists working on it?

Oil companies researching carbon capture, soul stirring!!!

Incidentally, the magical carbon capture that they like to research is what would let them continue their business forever unaltered!

Which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, if it was really possible!

But, as it turns out, carbon capture anywhere close to the scale they blather about is a fever dream, and they know it well.

But yes, let's celebrate them, heck lets make them saint!!!

This is Upton Sinclair’s quote:

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

Alas, the comments evince how almost none of the commenters read the article.