4 ms·

Imagine you’re Google and you have a tech ready & demonstrated to pull carbon out of the atmosphere, say, with 30% the binding energy required that’s gained by

Imagine you’re Google and you have a tech ready & demonstrated to pull carbon out of the atmosphere, say, with 30% the binding energy required that’s gained by burning fossil fuels to CO2. You keep innovating and stay ahead of the competition, using 5% of profits or such. Now go 20y into the future and USGov starts waking up to the mess they’ve creates. Miami is about to sink, Hurricanes are eating deep into their budget and Methane released from Sibirian traps is making it worse every year. The solar cycle is almost unrecognizable, every year is now El-Nino. China has ther own sequestration tech going and is net carbon negative, Europe is trying but failing, and all the world is screaming at the US to stop fucking around and do something. Who do you think they’ll throw all their money at? This kinda tech would be their license to print money. A nice percentage of everyone’s carbon tax.

stale2002 8y ago
Well, an alternative explanation is that your premise is wrong. No scientist believes that global warming is as bad as you are making it seem. Yes, it will cause trillions of dollars in damages over the next century or so, as sea levels go up by a couple feet. But that is hardly the end of the world, as you are making it seem. For example, Miami is not predicted to disappear, in a mere 20 years, as you imply. The actual negative effects of global warming are closer to being within an order of magnitude of badness to an Iraq war, in a century, than is it to being an extinction event.
- konschubert 8y ago
  I read recently that 6 degree warning means that agriculture won't be possible any longer outside the polar circles. I'd call that fairly impactful.
  - stale2002 8y ago
    Well, the IPCC doesn't think that, and also doesn't believe that we are going to get to 6 degrees C of warming. The predictions that I follow are not the pop doomsday predictions made on the internet. It is instead the predictions made by the official government experts on climate change. Also, all of this is definitely not predicted to happen within 20 years. actually bad effects are predicted more like 200 years+ from now. Which is plenty of time, if you just look at how much the human race has accomplished in the previous 200 years.
    - konschubert 8y ago
      I think it's naive to say "they'll figure it out within 100 years". Mankind's history is full of periods of technological stagnation and regression.
  - nl 8y ago
    No serious predictions include a 6 degree increase in the near to medium term. Don’t pass on crazy predictions like that, it causes people to ignore the real problems a 1 or 2 degree increase will cause.
    - konschubert 8y ago
      > near or medium term I want my grandchildren to be able to see their grandchildren grow up on habitable planet. But if you say that 6 years isn't going to happen in 1000 years and point me to sources then I'd be very happy to hear that.
      - nl 8y ago
        There are no negative predictions especially nor 1000 years out, and asking for them shows a complete lack of understanding of how prediction science works. Nevertheless: And the researchers say this means the probability of the ECS being less than 1.5°C—the Paris Climate Agreement’s super optimistic goal beyond the 2°C goal—is less than 3 percent. The upside, though, is they say this new estimate means the probability of the ECS passing 4.5°C is less than 1 percent. https://www.wired.com/story/the-dizzying-science-of-climate-change-gets-a-bit-clearer/ https://www.wired.com/story/the-dizzying-science-of-climate-...
        konschubert 8y ago
        You are right, I am very uneducated on this topic and only recently started reading. Thank you for the link.
anonytrary 8y ago
Your scenario is one of many (infinite) possible scenarios and a probability can be put on it. In the context of your example, my point is that Google needs to be confident that their math works out such that them inventing (hiring, R&D) and implementing (infrastructure) the carbon machine is profitable for their business. Unfortunately, they are a business, not a charity, so they'll have to be selling their new carbon tech eventually. If no one will buy it, then it won't be done, because it would have to be done at a loss. Back to real life, Google doesn't provide search because it makes the world a better place. Google provides search at the scale that they do because they had a clear business model and an incentive to do so. In an alternate reality, if it turned out nobody clicked ads, then Google would probably not exist at the scale that it does. Ten years ago, some decision to build 50,000 more processing servers would have been rejected by the board because they would have deemed it unprofitable. The profits a company makes gives them the ability to make a choice on where to expand. If they keep expanding into avenues that do not return profit, they will be given fewer of these choices -- and will eventually go bankrupt.
Roritharr 8y ago
Well atleast Gates invested in Carbon Engineering which does exactly that. At the moment they estimate it to cost between $94 and $232$ to pull 1T CO² out of the air. [1] So atleast someone is playing that game already, same with Ocean Cleanup Drones etc. etc. Lot's of people try to use market forces to save the planet, and Big Tech Co's are investing in that space, but it's not something where one can expect results in less than a decade. [1] https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2018/06/07/extracting-carbon-dioxide-from-the-air-is-possible-but-at-what-cost https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2018/06/07/...
- pfdietz 8y ago
  The Carbon Engineering story is interesting, because it politely but firmly shows an earlier claim from an APS study about the economics of direct air capture was just bad. The APS study made some bad engineering choices and other mistakes and wrongly concluded DAC would have to cost $600/ton of captured CO2. http://carbonengineering.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/CE_APS_DAC_Comments.pdf http://carbonengineering.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/CE_A...
- A2017U1 8y ago
  The carbon offset for a ton of emissions was a few dollars on my last flight. How is $94 feasible? Even a tenth of that seems too high

stale2002 8y ago

Well, an alternative explanation is that your premise is wrong. No scientist believes that global warming is as bad as you are making it seem. Yes, it will cause trillions of dollars in damages over the next century or so, as sea levels go up by a couple feet. But that is hardly the end of the world, as you are making it seem. For example, Miami is not predicted to disappear, in a mere 20 years, as you imply. The actual negative effects of global warming are closer to being within an order of magnitude of badness to an Iraq war, in a century, than is it to being an extinction event.

konschubert 8y ago
I read recently that 6 degree warning means that agriculture won't be possible any longer outside the polar circles. I'd call that fairly impactful.
- stale2002 8y ago
  Well, the IPCC doesn't think that, and also doesn't believe that we are going to get to 6 degrees C of warming. The predictions that I follow are not the pop doomsday predictions made on the internet. It is instead the predictions made by the official government experts on climate change. Also, all of this is definitely not predicted to happen within 20 years. actually bad effects are predicted more like 200 years+ from now. Which is plenty of time, if you just look at how much the human race has accomplished in the previous 200 years.
  - konschubert 8y ago
    I think it's naive to say "they'll figure it out within 100 years". Mankind's history is full of periods of technological stagnation and regression.
- nl 8y ago
  No serious predictions include a 6 degree increase in the near to medium term. Don’t pass on crazy predictions like that, it causes people to ignore the real problems a 1 or 2 degree increase will cause.
  - konschubert 8y ago
    > near or medium term I want my grandchildren to be able to see their grandchildren grow up on habitable planet. But if you say that 6 years isn't going to happen in 1000 years and point me to sources then I'd be very happy to hear that.
    - nl 8y ago
      There are no negative predictions especially nor 1000 years out, and asking for them shows a complete lack of understanding of how prediction science works. Nevertheless: And the researchers say this means the probability of the ECS being less than 1.5°C—the Paris Climate Agreement’s super optimistic goal beyond the 2°C goal—is less than 3 percent. The upside, though, is they say this new estimate means the probability of the ECS passing 4.5°C is less than 1 percent. https://www.wired.com/story/the-dizzying-science-of-climate-change-gets-a-bit-clearer/ https://www.wired.com/story/the-dizzying-science-of-climate-...
      - konschubert 8y ago
        You are right, I am very uneducated on this topic and only recently started reading. Thank you for the link.

anonytrary 8y ago

Your scenario is one of many (infinite) possible scenarios and a probability can be put on it. In the context of your example, my point is that Google needs to be confident that their math works out such that them inventing (hiring, R&D) and implementing (infrastructure) the carbon machine is profitable for their business. Unfortunately, they are a business, not a charity, so they'll have to be selling their new carbon tech eventually. If no one will buy it, then it won't be done, because it would have to be done at a loss. Back to real life, Google doesn't provide search because it makes the world a better place. Google provides search at the scale that they do because they had a clear business model and an incentive to do so. In an alternate reality, if it turned out nobody clicked ads, then Google would probably not exist at the scale that it does. Ten years ago, some decision to build 50,000 more processing servers would have been rejected by the board because they would have deemed it unprofitable. The profits a company makes gives them the ability to make a choice on where to expand. If they keep expanding into avenues that do not return profit, they will be given fewer of these choices -- and will eventually go bankrupt.

Roritharr 8y ago

Well atleast Gates invested in Carbon Engineering which does exactly that. At the moment they estimate it to cost between $94 and $232$ to pull 1T CO² out of the air. [1] So atleast someone is playing that game already, same with Ocean Cleanup Drones etc. etc. Lot's of people try to use market forces to save the planet, and Big Tech Co's are investing in that space, but it's not something where one can expect results in less than a decade. [1] https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2018/06/07/extracting-carbon-dioxide-from-the-air-is-possible-but-at-what-cost https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2018/06/07/...

pfdietz 8y ago
The Carbon Engineering story is interesting, because it politely but firmly shows an earlier claim from an APS study about the economics of direct air capture was just bad. The APS study made some bad engineering choices and other mistakes and wrongly concluded DAC would have to cost $600/ton of captured CO2. http://carbonengineering.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/CE_APS_DAC_Comments.pdf http://carbonengineering.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/CE_A...
A2017U1 8y ago
The carbon offset for a ton of emissions was a few dollars on my last flight. How is $94 feasible? Even a tenth of that seems too high