4 ms·
"Reversed" as in returning to 1950s CO2 levels would cost a few trillion, and many decades. Unmelting all the ice that melted in that time would cost a lot mor
by sbierwagen 8y ago
"Reversed" as in returning to 1950s CO2 levels would cost a few trillion, and many decades.
Unmelting all the ice that melted in that time would cost a lot more.
- cvaidya1986 8y agoHow about tech that absorbs CO2 and produces some useful output.
- mchannon 8y agoThis is a bit like asking for tech that converts lead into gold. CO2, when unpressurized, is about as worthless a source material as you can think of. Even at pressure (which is derived from mining CO2 deposits) its applications are limited.
- sbierwagen 8y agoThere is a reason industrial civilization has put quadrillions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, but taken very little out: It's profitable to emit carbon, and expensive to take it out of the air. You can absolutely take CO2 out of the air and produce useful output. It's physically possible, no problem. It's not at all profitable, though. Not much reason to produce synthetic gasoline at $20 a gallon when you can make it from fossil petroleum for $3 a gallon. This is why global warming mitigation efforts have focused on reducing emissions instead of carbon capture.