6 ms·

That's also nibbling around the periphery. The most pressing goal is NET negative total GHGs. This means BOTH sequestration and emissions cuts including going t

That's also nibbling around the periphery. The most pressing goal is NET negative total GHGs. This means BOTH sequestration and emissions cuts including going to clean energy, industrial processes and other large sectors like concrete and agriculture. We can't get there by #TeamTrees half-measures or ostensible tokenism like optional consumer-based recycling every now and then, or by allowing corrupt oligarchy/plutocracy to keep resisting taking action. To these ends, BioCCS is going to have to happen whether we like it or not because pumping and cracking CO2 from air is just too expensive. Ferrous ocean seeding and mega seaweed blooms (like the area from Mexico to Africa now) is going to have to happen if we want to get this under control. Harvest that and either sink it to the bottom of deep trenches or burn it in a sealed chamber and pump the gasses/ash deep underground. Concurrently and in parallel, we can and should switch to scalable renewables / non-FF like fission, solar and wind if/when/until fusion becomes a reality. All-in-all, rapid negative GHGs must be the goal because the ESAS/methane gun hypothesis maybe a Sword of Damocles over our heads that could really put us in a bad spot if it fell. We must get the Arctic sea ice in summer restored or the heating of Arctic Ocean will introduce so much additional energy into a viscous feedback loop that will disrupt weather and climate for the foreseeable future. Here are some other sucky truths that are necessary: - FF-based jumbo jets, trains and large cruise/cargo ships will need to find alternative means of locomotion. - Animal protein production should be curtailed almost entirely. - Concrete (actually the clinker in Portland cement) and other industrial processes that pollute the air with enormous quantities of CO2, methane and/or other GHGs must capture their emissions and have them sequestered properly.

Mirioron 7y ago
>- Animal protein production should be curtailed almost entirely. I could see all the other stuff happening in my lifetime, but not this. There is simply no way that we will find a way to create animal proteins in enough quantities in a way that's safe and as nutritious that people will trust to eat. Perhaps some future society might have it, but definitely not ours in the foreseeable future.
- jl6 7y ago
  We already have a solution to this: reduce consumption of animal proteins.
- jamil7 7y ago
  We don’t need to produce more in the western world. Taxing animal protein heavily would curtail existing overconsumption.
jes5199 7y ago
I think direct capture to high-value molecules is the future. The Licht group - one of the Carbon X-Prize teams - have some pretty astounding prototypes. Solar-powered direct-air capture to carbon nanofibers with no waste products. It’s like unburning fossil fuels, and ending up with whatever carbon chains we want
ppf 7y ago
Edit: nearly forgot this - I would love to see some analysis on the net CO2 balance after covering the Atlantic in algae, then transporting it all into trenches and buying it. I also assume this will kill almost all other life in that ocean. If you are of the opinion that this action will save the rest of the world's wildlife, then I suppose it's a trade that can be made. The unsustainable part of modern life is not the fuel used, it's the sheer number of miles the average person travels, and the miles travelled by the items they purchase (and the number of those items). The modes of tranport you described are incredibly efficient, used properly. Just to pick one example, modern passenger jets get 80mpg+ per person. If you really have to fly a long way (for example, to a climate conference!) it's better to fly than to drive, unless you give a few other people a ride. You'll also need some fast way to ship your replacement protein, unless you are lucky enough to live in certain parts of the world.

Mirioron 7y ago

>- Animal protein production should be curtailed almost entirely. I could see all the other stuff happening in my lifetime, but not this. There is simply no way that we will find a way to create animal proteins in enough quantities in a way that's safe and as nutritious that people will trust to eat. Perhaps some future society might have it, but definitely not ours in the foreseeable future.

jl6 7y ago
We already have a solution to this: reduce consumption of animal proteins.
jamil7 7y ago
We don’t need to produce more in the western world. Taxing animal protein heavily would curtail existing overconsumption.

jes5199 7y ago

I think direct capture to high-value molecules is the future. The Licht group - one of the Carbon X-Prize teams - have some pretty astounding prototypes. Solar-powered direct-air capture to carbon nanofibers with no waste products. It’s like unburning fossil fuels, and ending up with whatever carbon chains we want

ppf 7y ago

Edit: nearly forgot this - I would love to see some analysis on the net CO2 balance after covering the Atlantic in algae, then transporting it all into trenches and buying it. I also assume this will kill almost all other life in that ocean. If you are of the opinion that this action will save the rest of the world's wildlife, then I suppose it's a trade that can be made. The unsustainable part of modern life is not the fuel used, it's the sheer number of miles the average person travels, and the miles travelled by the items they purchase (and the number of those items). The modes of tranport you described are incredibly efficient, used properly. Just to pick one example, modern passenger jets get 80mpg+ per person. If you really have to fly a long way (for example, to a climate conference!) it's better to fly than to drive, unless you give a few other people a ride. You'll also need some fast way to ship your replacement protein, unless you are lucky enough to live in certain parts of the world.