3 ms·
"At the low end you're looking at a minimum of ~$1.34 trillion annually if we were able to capture 100% of the 32.5 GtC of emissions accumulated in the atmosphe
by gepi79 8y ago
"At the low end you're looking at a minimum of ~$1.34 trillion annually if we were able to capture 100% of the 32.5 GtC of emissions accumulated in the atmosphere in 2017 alone."
Just $1.34 trillion for the recycling of carbon of an entire year like 2017 is crazy cheap. Once installed, the machines can recycle every year for much less money. One has to wonder why it has not been done alreday.
Compare with:
Annual global fossil fuel subsidies amounting to $5.3 trillion in 2015 (6.5% of global GDP):
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X16304867 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X1...
Dr. Mark Skidmore – $21 Trillion Missing from US Federal Budget:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CwpjIwwI9o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CwpjIwwI9o
- ben_w 8y ago> One has to wonder why it has not been done alreday. Psychology, I think. We’re not, as a species, good with numbers like that. Brexit was fought over a much smaller sum, both gross and as a percentage of the economy.
- gepi79 8y agoIMO lack of knowledge, lack of technology (e.g. affordable electric cars), bad contracts, conservative politicians (and voters) and corrupt politicians. Corrupt in the sense of personal profit (including lucrative talks and positions in companies and donations by companies) and profit for established national companies.