4 ms·
I always find it odd that atmospheric carbon capture isn't a greater part of the conversation on climate change. It's basically assumed that we'll need to be ab
by topkai22 7y ago
I always find it odd that atmospheric carbon capture isn't a greater part of the conversation on climate change. It's basically assumed that we'll need to be able to take carbon out of the system to meet our goals, but so few people are willing to mention it as part of the overall solution to transitioning to a net negative economy. It seems like a technology that still has a lot of runway left before we start hitting any sort of fundamental limits on efficiency.
- jackdeansmith 7y agoI think air capture is an important part of the discussion when we talk about trying to get temps back down later this century, but I have serious doubts about it playing a large role in determining what the peak CO2 concentration will be around the middle of the century. Capture is orders of magnitude more expensive than emissions reductions, and will be for a long time. When you invest in capture, you get lower net emissions and that's it. When you invest in emissions cuts, at least while there's still a lot of low-hanging-fruit, you get the same net effect while also getting a productive asset like a power plant. Totally onboard with research budgets going way up for capture tech, we're 100% going to need it, but later rather than sooner I think.