5 ms·
The weird part about sequestering is that if it's really going to work, people will need incentive to simply put all that energy in to the ground with no immedi
by Neeek 10y ago
The weird part about sequestering is that if it's really going to work, people will need incentive to simply put all that energy in to the ground with no immediate benefit for them. You either need heavy government regulation or for everyone involved to be thinking about the larger picture.
I wonder if anti aging technology would push people to start seeing climate problems in its larger context.
- toomuchtodo 10y agoCarbon tax funds sequestering operations. Something like this: https://www.terrapass.com/climate-change/carbon-offsets-explained https://www.terrapass.com/climate-change/carbon-offsets-expl...
- philipkglass 10y agoCarbon sequestration doesn't necessarily mean driving combustion in reverse to get oxygen and hydrocarbons again. Accelerated silicate weathering could remove a lot more atmospheric CO2 per unit of energy invested and it generates carbonate minerals rather than fuel that people would be tempted to burn again. Like this, "Enhanced weathering strategies for stabilizing climate and averting ocean acidification": http://www.southampton.ac.uk/assets/imported/transforms/content-block/UsefulDownloads_Download/2639B3403ED947729B86FA1B2275AFD9/article%20Taylor%20et%20al%20(2015).pdf http://www.southampton.ac.uk/assets/imported/transforms/cont...
- Neeek 10y agoThat's pretty cool! Non fuel forms of sequestered carbon hadn't occurred to me, though you would still need to fund the process. Using a carbon tax to fund it as a government function seem likes the obvious solution if it were to be implemented at scale.