4 ms·
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 produc
by 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 agoAll 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 agoWe 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.