4 ms·

That is actually the scariest thing about CO2. It's going to stay in our atmosphere for 100 of years. So even just stopping emitting is just about maintaining t

by enqk 6y ago

That is actually the scariest thing about CO2. It's going to stay in our atmosphere for 100 of years. So even just stopping emitting is just about maintaining the status quo. Once the crisis becomes really bad, we don't have any more means to reduce it. (I set a very low belief in sequestration methods because they're thermodynamically crazy..)

ben_w 6y ago
> I set a very low belief in sequestration methods because they're thermodynamically crazy. With current tech I agree completely. In the sci-fi future of my fantasies [0], industrial oil for plastics etc. will come from GM algae or similar, which would sequester CO2 from the air by photosynthesis. [0] which may or may not even be possible — I don’t know, I’m not a biologist, and there has to be a reason why the previous efforts have failed
- jooize 6y ago
  What do you think about Project Vesta[1]? [1]: https://projectvesta.org/ https://projectvesta.org/ [2]: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nature-based-climate-change-technology-hits-key-milestone-in-demonstrating-gigaton-scale-carbon-dioxide-removal-301045099.html https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nature-based-climat... (2020-04-22) [3]: https://twitter.com/project_vesta https://twitter.com/project_vesta
  - ben_w 6y ago
    I don’t know enough, to be sure. How large are global olivine reserves compares to historical and future CO2 emissions? What are the side effects at the required scale? I’m glad they’re doing the experiments, and I’m sure they consider any question I can come up with (including the above) to be trite to the point of cliché. From the cost and quantity requirements in their FAQ, this will cost $232.4 billion/year. While that ought to be considered affordable vs. the world economy… well, call me cynical, but I don’t think voters or politicians think like that. As grid scale PV reportedly costs $0.7/watt (peak) in the USA, that money could also install 332 GW of additional solar every year. As the panels look like they should last 30 years, that gives a steady-state equivalent of 9.96 TW (peak), compared to total (not just electrical) global consumption of double that continually, and I’ll fudge-factor as another x2.5 on top to convert peak solar output to time-averaged solar output to make PV x5 the cost of olivine. So, economically that looks good with current tech, but may look bad if grid-scale PV goes below $0.14/watt (peak). But that analysis assumes that fossil fuels are free, and as current solar prices are already cheaper than fossil fuels (0), people will probably switch to PV regardless of olivine and save money while doing so. But olivine is probably still useful for the CO2 sources that are hard to substitute with eco-friendly alternatives. (0) What’s that Skippy, current oil prices are negative?
M2Ys4U 6y ago
> That is actually the scariest thing about CO2. It's going to stay in our atmosphere for 100 of years. So even just stopping emitting is just about maintaining the status quo. And the worst part about that is the status quo is still warming. We need to have a net reduction in CO2 levels in order not to blow past catastrophic temperatures.
- specialist 6y ago
  And that reduction needs to be greater than the increase from thawing tundra and burning forests. We could stop all anthropogenic sources of green house gasses and the atmospheric PPM will continue to increase.
VBprogrammer 6y ago
It's probably a fatalist way of looking at things but if the lockdown, with it's massive changes to our normal lifestyles, isn't doing enough then is it even realistically possible for us to change?
- choeger 6y ago
  No. Because just scrapping the economy won't do. I know there are many people out there that firmly believe that "less is more" and "growth must be stopped". But these people do almost definitely do not live in countries where children die because of poverty. Our economics might be perverse in some regards, but they are the most efficient way to generate material wealth that we know of. And we need material wealth. As an example, just think of what is necessary to mass-produce a hypothetical Corona vaccine. So what can we do? Swing away from CO2-emitting energy generation as quickly as possible, plant forests, prepare for inevitable climate changes (drought, storm, ocean rising), and plant even more forests.
  - CuriousSkeptic 6y ago
    I think we now of better ways in theory. It’s a political issue not a lack of knowledge. A dividend from a global carbon tax could put a bit of money in the hands of those who live in poverty. And giving poor people money has been proven to be an efficient approach to increase wealth.
    - choeger 6y ago
      Of course you can redistribute wealth in many meaningful ways. (just think of mandatory social insurance or minimum wages.) The problem is how to produce the wealth you want to distribute in the first place. There has been no system that comes even close in regards to innovation and efficiency when it comes to production.
      - CuriousSkeptic 6y ago
        My point was that the suggestion actually have been proven to “produce wealth” efficiently. And I’m pretty sure there at a lot of such knowledge in out there. So it’s not really a problem of finding ways to produce wealth. It’s a problem of how to inform policy based on existing knowledge.
davedx 6y ago
https://climeworks.shop/?utm_source=CW-Website&utm_medium=banner&utm_campaign=teaser8 https://climeworks.shop/?utm_source=CW-Website&utm_medium=ba... is already doing this, it’s not thermodynamically crazy just economically expensive. I am paying 25 eur/month for now, with the plan that if they can make it cheaper I will spend more. The tech is developing. We have plenty of energy from the sun to sequester co2. It’s just in its infancy at the moment
- gzimhelshani 6y ago
  That's my biggest hope honestly.
marcosdumay 6y ago
> I set a very low belief in sequestration methods because they're thermodynamically crazy.. A solar farm plugged into a machine building plastic may sound crazy to you because oil is so cheap, but keep in mind that the theoretical bottom for the price of that solar farm is basically limited by the labor required to place it there. There isn't even much of a reason for the generic "plastic" created by such a project not to be PV panels by itself.

by enqk 6y ago

ben_w 6y ago

> I set a very low belief in sequestration methods because they're thermodynamically crazy. With current tech I agree completely. In the sci-fi future of my fantasies [0], industrial oil for plastics etc. will come from GM algae or similar, which would sequester CO2 from the air by photosynthesis. [0] which may or may not even be possible — I don’t know, I’m not a biologist, and there has to be a reason why the previous efforts have failed

jooize 6y ago
What do you think about Project Vesta[1]? [1]: https://projectvesta.org/ https://projectvesta.org/ [2]: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nature-based-climate-change-technology-hits-key-milestone-in-demonstrating-gigaton-scale-carbon-dioxide-removal-301045099.html https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nature-based-climat... (2020-04-22) [3]: https://twitter.com/project_vesta https://twitter.com/project_vesta
- ben_w 6y ago
  I don’t know enough, to be sure. How large are global olivine reserves compares to historical and future CO2 emissions? What are the side effects at the required scale? I’m glad they’re doing the experiments, and I’m sure they consider any question I can come up with (including the above) to be trite to the point of cliché. From the cost and quantity requirements in their FAQ, this will cost $232.4 billion/year. While that ought to be considered affordable vs. the world economy… well, call me cynical, but I don’t think voters or politicians think like that. As grid scale PV reportedly costs $0.7/watt (peak) in the USA, that money could also install 332 GW of additional solar every year. As the panels look like they should last 30 years, that gives a steady-state equivalent of 9.96 TW (peak), compared to total (not just electrical) global consumption of double that continually, and I’ll fudge-factor as another x2.5 on top to convert peak solar output to time-averaged solar output to make PV x5 the cost of olivine. So, economically that looks good with current tech, but may look bad if grid-scale PV goes below $0.14/watt (peak). But that analysis assumes that fossil fuels are free, and as current solar prices are already cheaper than fossil fuels (0), people will probably switch to PV regardless of olivine and save money while doing so. But olivine is probably still useful for the CO2 sources that are hard to substitute with eco-friendly alternatives. (0) What’s that Skippy, current oil prices are negative?

M2Ys4U 6y ago

> That is actually the scariest thing about CO2. It's going to stay in our atmosphere for 100 of years. So even just stopping emitting is just about maintaining the status quo. And the worst part about that is the status quo is still warming. We need to have a net reduction in CO2 levels in order not to blow past catastrophic temperatures.

specialist 6y ago
And that reduction needs to be greater than the increase from thawing tundra and burning forests. We could stop all anthropogenic sources of green house gasses and the atmospheric PPM will continue to increase.

VBprogrammer 6y ago

It's probably a fatalist way of looking at things but if the lockdown, with it's massive changes to our normal lifestyles, isn't doing enough then is it even realistically possible for us to change?

choeger 6y ago
No. Because just scrapping the economy won't do. I know there are many people out there that firmly believe that "less is more" and "growth must be stopped". But these people do almost definitely do not live in countries where children die because of poverty. Our economics might be perverse in some regards, but they are the most efficient way to generate material wealth that we know of. And we need material wealth. As an example, just think of what is necessary to mass-produce a hypothetical Corona vaccine. So what can we do? Swing away from CO2-emitting energy generation as quickly as possible, plant forests, prepare for inevitable climate changes (drought, storm, ocean rising), and plant even more forests.
- CuriousSkeptic 6y ago
  I think we now of better ways in theory. It’s a political issue not a lack of knowledge. A dividend from a global carbon tax could put a bit of money in the hands of those who live in poverty. And giving poor people money has been proven to be an efficient approach to increase wealth.
  - choeger 6y ago
    Of course you can redistribute wealth in many meaningful ways. (just think of mandatory social insurance or minimum wages.) The problem is how to produce the wealth you want to distribute in the first place. There has been no system that comes even close in regards to innovation and efficiency when it comes to production.
    - CuriousSkeptic 6y ago
      My point was that the suggestion actually have been proven to “produce wealth” efficiently. And I’m pretty sure there at a lot of such knowledge in out there. So it’s not really a problem of finding ways to produce wealth. It’s a problem of how to inform policy based on existing knowledge.

davedx 6y ago

https://climeworks.shop/?utm_source=CW-Website&utm_medium=banner&utm_campaign=teaser8 https://climeworks.shop/?utm_source=CW-Website&utm_medium=ba... is already doing this, it’s not thermodynamically crazy just economically expensive. I am paying 25 eur/month for now, with the plan that if they can make it cheaper I will spend more. The tech is developing. We have plenty of energy from the sun to sequester co2. It’s just in its infancy at the moment

gzimhelshani 6y ago
That's my biggest hope honestly.

marcosdumay 6y ago

> I set a very low belief in sequestration methods because they're thermodynamically crazy.. A solar farm plugged into a machine building plastic may sound crazy to you because oil is so cheap, but keep in mind that the theoretical bottom for the price of that solar farm is basically limited by the labor required to place it there. There isn't even much of a reason for the generic "plastic" created by such a project not to be PV panels by itself.