3 ms·

We are going to need technology that will pull CO2 from the atmosphere. Yes, doing that is very energy intensive, but we have tech like nuclear power that could

We are going to need technology that will pull CO2 from the atmosphere. Yes, doing that is very energy intensive, but we have tech like nuclear power that could power such a process. People want to have their lifestyle and telling people in developing countries that they can never have the Western lifestyle and telling people in developed countries that they have to reduce their lifestyle are simply untenable politically. We should be focusing on climate change mitigation.

SubiculumCode 7y ago
Then support Andrew Yang, who, I believe, recognizes this as an important element to fighting climate change.
greffetti 7y ago
Our society is able to take flights all the time, has year-round availability of seasonal fruit, has gargantuan industrial processes treating millions of sentient beings like inanimate product to supply meat, etc. Obviously these things aren't sustainable, given that their structures are so closely intertwined with fossil fuel usage, yet it would be basically impossible to convince everyone on Earth to stop using making use of them, which is why I suppose I agree with the "pessimistic" view that the author has. Regardless, mitigating a disaster while still causing that disaster doesn't result in the disaster ending. If we allocate all our efforts into mitigation we won't be in a position to actually restructure our society to be sustainable when the problem of climate change remains.
usrusr 7y ago
Pulling is easy, the "technology" is called trees and actual technology will never be able to compete with them as long as the CO2 content in the atmosphere is measured in hundreds of ppm (and if it ever reaches into the thousands we might just as well give up and focus on building mementos for passing alien civilizations to find) The challenge is to keep the extracted carbon from returning to the atmosphere. Those underground reservoirs of coal and hydrocarbons we have been digging up all the time are hard to beat.
graeme 7y ago
> We should be focusing on climate change mitigation. I've never heard a convincing case for this that accepted that warming will keep going and going unless we stop emitting. Mitigation in that event will be something like "abandon all historical coastal cities and keep building new port infrastructure every couple decades".
seanwilson 7y ago
> We are going to need technology that will pull CO2 from the atmosphere. Yes, doing that is very energy intensive Wouldn't you need even more energy to pull it in that it took to release it? So to undo 10 years worth of global emissions, you'd need more energy than was generated worldwide over those 10 years? Sounds impossible.
- jlmorton 7y ago
  No, technology like Direct Air Capture requires about 250kWh as a theoretical minimum to capture 1 ton of CO2. Current methods require about 600kWh. Meanwhile, one ton of coal generates about 2,500kWh of electricity.
  - jandrewrogers 7y ago
    This is not correct. Per the DAC literature I've seen, the fully burdened energy cost to capture a ton of CO2 is around 12 MWh. The numbers you provided appear to violate the laws of thermodynamics on their face, whereas the 12 MWh number does not. The 250kWh number likely only accounts for the operational energy requirements, not the fully burdened energy requirements of creating the consumable inputs.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]

SubiculumCode 7y ago

Then support Andrew Yang, who, I believe, recognizes this as an important element to fighting climate change.

greffetti 7y ago

Our society is able to take flights all the time, has year-round availability of seasonal fruit, has gargantuan industrial processes treating millions of sentient beings like inanimate product to supply meat, etc. Obviously these things aren't sustainable, given that their structures are so closely intertwined with fossil fuel usage, yet it would be basically impossible to convince everyone on Earth to stop using making use of them, which is why I suppose I agree with the "pessimistic" view that the author has. Regardless, mitigating a disaster while still causing that disaster doesn't result in the disaster ending. If we allocate all our efforts into mitigation we won't be in a position to actually restructure our society to be sustainable when the problem of climate change remains.

usrusr 7y ago

Pulling is easy, the "technology" is called trees and actual technology will never be able to compete with them as long as the CO2 content in the atmosphere is measured in hundreds of ppm (and if it ever reaches into the thousands we might just as well give up and focus on building mementos for passing alien civilizations to find) The challenge is to keep the extracted carbon from returning to the atmosphere. Those underground reservoirs of coal and hydrocarbons we have been digging up all the time are hard to beat.

graeme 7y ago

> We should be focusing on climate change mitigation. I've never heard a convincing case for this that accepted that warming will keep going and going unless we stop emitting. Mitigation in that event will be something like "abandon all historical coastal cities and keep building new port infrastructure every couple decades".

seanwilson 7y ago

> We are going to need technology that will pull CO2 from the atmosphere. Yes, doing that is very energy intensive Wouldn't you need even more energy to pull it in that it took to release it? So to undo 10 years worth of global emissions, you'd need more energy than was generated worldwide over those 10 years? Sounds impossible.

jlmorton 7y ago
No, technology like Direct Air Capture requires about 250kWh as a theoretical minimum to capture 1 ton of CO2. Current methods require about 600kWh. Meanwhile, one ton of coal generates about 2,500kWh of electricity.
- jandrewrogers 7y ago
  This is not correct. Per the DAC literature I've seen, the fully burdened energy cost to capture a ton of CO2 is around 12 MWh. The numbers you provided appear to violate the laws of thermodynamics on their face, whereas the 12 MWh number does not. The 250kWh number likely only accounts for the operational energy requirements, not the fully burdened energy requirements of creating the consumable inputs.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]