3 ms·

The one-time energy cost of removal might offset the constant cost of having the CO2 in the atmosphere. It's dependant on the energy cost of removal of course.

• intended 9y ago
  Right, but a one time energy cost of removal? Our environment built itself out of eons of incremental changes using self replicating systems using the entirety of habitable surface area. I think its extremely unlikely that there will be a single one time way of removing carbon from the air (I'd bet on it). So we will be left with constant and continuous systems cleaning the air. Instead of not mucking it up in the first place. ---- You should also consider that the moment people start selling Geo engineering, they will also sell permission to keep doing what we are doing. So the solution seems to be to spend more on cleaning the air, and allowing us to pollute it further at the same time. In such a scenario I see things going MORE wrong, with unanticipated effects going on to create more damage.
  • Beltiras 9y ago
    There are sequestration methods today like storing CO2 in rocks: https://www.or.is/english/carbfix-project https://www.or.is/english/carbfix-project
    • ericd 9y ago
      Can we do it at the enormous scale we'd need to in order to offset the enormous amount of oil, coal, and gas we've burnt, though?
      • Beltiras 9y ago
        I have no insight into it. For sure it is easier to not burn the carbon instead of having to filter it from the atmosphere.