I get where you’re coming from, skepticism is healthy and, honestly, necessary when it comes to big promises about tech solutions for climate change. But I think it’s worth taking a second look at carbon capture technology. It’s not about being gullible; it’s about exploring all our options to tackle a massive issue. Sure, it’s had its share of ups and downs, and, yes, it requires substantial investment and development to be viable on a large scale. However, it’s far from a scam.

I worked as a researcher in advanced materials for carbon capture, an alternative to the traditional carbon capture that uses amines for “capturing carbon” (a better term would be “carbon separation and storage”, BTW). The TRL (Technology Readiness Level) of amine-based carbon separation is 7, meaning that it has been implemented in large-scale facilities in operating conditions (specifically, at the Petra Nova Power Plant, which unfortunately closed down due to the low oil price during COVID). The rest of the carbon separation technologies (adsorption media, membrane, cryogenics, etc.) have not yet passed TRL 4 or 5, but they are expected to continue to find niche uses. Bottom line is that all of the methods WORK technically, but decrease power generation efficiency, so they may or may not work economically. Regulations and quotas could lift this obstacle.

Dismissing it outright as a ‘scam’ might be overlooking the potential benefits it offers in reducing CO2 emissions. It’s definitely not the sole solution, and we need a broad strategy that includes renewable energy, energy efficiency, and conservation. In fact, the main obstacle that “carbon capture” technologies face is in terms of public opinion, with companies branding the technology as a “silver bullet” that magically makes all previous and present emissions go away, sometimes without even investing in the research and development necessary to make it work, like ExxonMobil did. Or they imply that since they are doing “carbon capture,” the other strategies are obsolete, which is definitely not the case.

However, writing off carbon capture entirely could mean missing out on a valuable tool in our fight against climate change. Let’s keep the conversation open and critically assess all possible solutions, including this one. What do you think?"

That’s the case for very specific places, but in general, tabearuki is considered 行儀の悪いこと, meaning bad manners, basically.

Take a look at this article, for example. Or this anectode. Or info from a language school. Or this quora answer. They all discuss how eating while walking is bad manners and can bring nuisance to the people around you, even in non crowded places. Of course this is not every Japanese person’s opinion! I’ve even seen people advocating for it.

I think it’s not such bad manner that you would be scolded by a stranger, perhaps by a Japanese partner or close friend, but it’s definetly not seen in good eyes in general.

Great response! Just a comment, 食べ歩き (eating while walking) is definitely not seen with good eyes in many places in Japan. Some very touristic streets even have signs to forbid it.

I think about 1k USD would improve my life a lot at the moment and in the future. I’m in the process of moving countries for a job and I need to have my things shipped. I already live abroad, so I can’t leave anything behind. Anything I cannot afford to ship I will have to give away or dispose. With all the moving expenses, I have no idea how much money I have left for shipping, but 1k would allow me to ship everything stress free.

Wow, thanks for the tip. The default sorting should really be hot rather than active.