4 ms·

> It will always be cheaper to prevent creation of CO2 (burning fossil fuels) than to catch CO2 back from the atmosphere. Maybe. But the politics could be tota

> It will always be cheaper to prevent creation of CO2 (burning fossil fuels) than to catch CO2 back from the atmosphere. Maybe. But the politics could be totally different. Scrubbing would not be perceived as suppressing the activities of an existing industry. Hopefully, therefore, huge sectors of the existing economy would not mobilize against it the way they have against proposals to suppress CO2 output.

Retric 8y ago
I suspect large groups would organize to prevent spending 100+ Billion per year. Which would still make an insignificant change assuming we continue to produce CO2. The scale of CO2 emissions are hard to conceive. You see human heath effects in areas with poor ventilation from high CO2 levels, but as CO2 rises what constitutes poor ventilation changes. At current rates even ignoring climate changes old buildings will start to cause headaches from high CO2 levels. Buildings built at 275ppm are generally still fine at 400ppm, but that changes as you keep going.
lucisferre 8y ago
This claim definitely feels like a fact not in evidence. I have not seen any number for the cost to society to completely transition from CO2 creating activities and move to a CO2 negative state. Because that is what it is going to take to prevent climate change at this point. A reduction in CO2 isn't going to cut it. I would guess that cost is much higher than they think.
jpfed 8y ago
One problem from the fossil fuel industry's perspective is that, while scrubbing doesn't suppress their activity, doing it is essentially an admission that there's a carbon problem. And once you do that, you give up the protection that controversy and doubt affords you, and people might start demanding more extreme measures to curb carbon. Paying people to spread misinformation that maintains controversy and doubt (e.g. https://cei.org/ https://cei.org/ , who also helped maintain doubt surrounding the link between smoking and cancer) is far cheaper than the reckoning that could eventually result from admitting that carbon is a problem.

Retric 8y ago

I suspect large groups would organize to prevent spending 100+ Billion per year. Which would still make an insignificant change assuming we continue to produce CO2. The scale of CO2 emissions are hard to conceive. You see human heath effects in areas with poor ventilation from high CO2 levels, but as CO2 rises what constitutes poor ventilation changes. At current rates even ignoring climate changes old buildings will start to cause headaches from high CO2 levels. Buildings built at 275ppm are generally still fine at 400ppm, but that changes as you keep going.

lucisferre 8y ago

This claim definitely feels like a fact not in evidence. I have not seen any number for the cost to society to completely transition from CO2 creating activities and move to a CO2 negative state. Because that is what it is going to take to prevent climate change at this point. A reduction in CO2 isn't going to cut it. I would guess that cost is much higher than they think.

jpfed 8y ago

One problem from the fossil fuel industry's perspective is that, while scrubbing doesn't suppress their activity, doing it is essentially an admission that there's a carbon problem. And once you do that, you give up the protection that controversy and doubt affords you, and people might start demanding more extreme measures to curb carbon. Paying people to spread misinformation that maintains controversy and doubt (e.g. https://cei.org/ https://cei.org/ , who also helped maintain doubt surrounding the link between smoking and cancer) is far cheaper than the reckoning that could eventually result from admitting that carbon is a problem.