4 ms·

The only way forward, the only chance we have is to invent technology to trap and sequester green houses gases from the upper atmosphere. Reducing human greenh

The only way forward, the only chance we have is to invent technology to trap and sequester green houses gases from the upper atmosphere. Reducing human greenhouse gas output won’t happen fast enough to fix things, and I’m not sure that it’s possible to capture and trap existing green house gases, but it’s the only chance we have, because it’s the only way to stop the positive feedback loops that are currently running, warming oceans, melting glaciers, and thawing permafrost. We need to reverse warming, not slow it down. The current approach of “adding less” is absurd. If you need 2,500 calories to maintain your weight, and you are eating 25,000 calories you will get fat fast. Reducing calorie intake to 15,000 won’t let you lose weight, you’ll just get fatter slower. Our current approach to climate change is to get fatter slower, we need to lose weight. We need the capacity to capture and sequester per year, 10% more green house gases than we produce per year. Because we need to reduce the total amount of green house gases in the upper atmosphere.

abathur 7y ago
I agree that we'll probably need capture, but just want to inject a concern I have with seeing capture as salvation: Any capture/sequestration tech that produces marketable byproducts may have a big leg up on any tech that has to depend on large purely-altruistic investments. Technology tends to get more efficient with time/investment/scale. If any capture/sequestration processes achieve profitability (maybe even just marginal profitability after an initial capital investment), it may not be straightforward to turn them back off .
- kaybe 7y ago
  All scenarious in the latest IPPC report (SR15 - Global Warming of 1.5 ºC) require carbon sequestration, so it's really not optional anymore if we want to stay below 1.5°C warming. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SPM3b-724x1024.png https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SPM3...
- sitkack 7y ago
  We need both. 1. Stop doing it 2. Reverse it. We can't reverse the amount of carbon without stopping our emissions. And it is important that we don't _allow_ people to hand wave one away for the other. We need at least both, we also need to track mitigations in helping the environment (trees, animals, rivers) to operate in these new regimes.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
We need both, in so far that slowing the warming buys us time to invent new technologies, and move economies towards negative emissions without breaking it or (if I'm to believe api's speculations elsewhere in the thread[0], and I am willing to) starting World War Three. -- [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21026975 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21026975
smakk 7y ago
Do you know if there are any current technologies to trap and sequester green house gases ?
- asokoloski 7y ago
  As far as I know, the most cost-effective method is very low tech--just find a good area and plant a variety of native trees.
  - kaybe 7y ago
    The biggest problem I see is that you now have to protect those trees for basically forever. Fires will only become more problematic, and the push for more usable land as well. Also, trees take decades to grow, which we don't have. Better than nothing yes, but not enough.
- orbifold 7y ago
  One technology is called “TREES”, actually scratch that a more advanced version is called “RAINFOREST” (that one sequesters far more CO2 per square meter than TREES alone). Unfortunately people have cut down a significant portion of both TREES and RAINFOREST because they are economically incentivized to do so.
  - DesiLurker 7y ago
    one way to effect that directly is to eat less beef, I wonder how many are willing to make that sacrifice?
  - asah 7y ago
    JFYI this "tree" technology of which you speak, can only be deployed at the earth's surface. AFAICT, OP was asking about upper atmosphere, which doesn't mix much with the lower atmosphere. Perhaps trees plus some way to mix the atmosphere? Also, I believe we were talking about methane - and while these nifty "tree" things appear to sequester CO2, I believe these produce some amount of methane. Again, perhaps pair Trees(tm) with something to address the methane? For example, I've heard about "fire" but unsure if it can be deployed in the upper atmosphere, requires unrealistic concentrations of methane, or whether its outputs and side effects are acceptable. :-)

abathur 7y ago

I agree that we'll probably need capture, but just want to inject a concern I have with seeing capture as salvation: Any capture/sequestration tech that produces marketable byproducts may have a big leg up on any tech that has to depend on large purely-altruistic investments. Technology tends to get more efficient with time/investment/scale. If any capture/sequestration processes achieve profitability (maybe even just marginal profitability after an initial capital investment), it may not be straightforward to turn them back off .

kaybe 7y ago
All scenarious in the latest IPPC report (SR15 - Global Warming of 1.5 ºC) require carbon sequestration, so it's really not optional anymore if we want to stay below 1.5°C warming. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SPM3b-724x1024.png https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SPM3...
sitkack 7y ago
We need both. 1. Stop doing it 2. Reverse it. We can't reverse the amount of carbon without stopping our emissions. And it is important that we don't _allow_ people to hand wave one away for the other. We need at least both, we also need to track mitigations in helping the environment (trees, animals, rivers) to operate in these new regimes.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

We need both, in so far that slowing the warming buys us time to invent new technologies, and move economies towards negative emissions without breaking it or (if I'm to believe api's speculations elsewhere in the thread[0], and I am willing to) starting World War Three. -- [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21026975 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21026975

smakk 7y ago

Do you know if there are any current technologies to trap and sequester green house gases ?

asokoloski 7y ago
As far as I know, the most cost-effective method is very low tech--just find a good area and plant a variety of native trees.
- kaybe 7y ago
  The biggest problem I see is that you now have to protect those trees for basically forever. Fires will only become more problematic, and the push for more usable land as well. Also, trees take decades to grow, which we don't have. Better than nothing yes, but not enough.
orbifold 7y ago
One technology is called “TREES”, actually scratch that a more advanced version is called “RAINFOREST” (that one sequesters far more CO2 per square meter than TREES alone). Unfortunately people have cut down a significant portion of both TREES and RAINFOREST because they are economically incentivized to do so.
- DesiLurker 7y ago
  one way to effect that directly is to eat less beef, I wonder how many are willing to make that sacrifice?
- asah 7y ago
  JFYI this "tree" technology of which you speak, can only be deployed at the earth's surface. AFAICT, OP was asking about upper atmosphere, which doesn't mix much with the lower atmosphere. Perhaps trees plus some way to mix the atmosphere? Also, I believe we were talking about methane - and while these nifty "tree" things appear to sequester CO2, I believe these produce some amount of methane. Again, perhaps pair Trees(tm) with something to address the methane? For example, I've heard about "fire" but unsure if it can be deployed in the upper atmosphere, requires unrealistic concentrations of methane, or whether its outputs and side effects are acceptable. :-)