5 ms·

80 - 180 US$ for the removal of a ton of CO2 is far more than the cost of adding a ton of CO2 to the atmosphere (in Germany, currently around 10€/ton, I believe

by sveme 6y ago

80 - 180 US$ for the removal of a ton of CO2 is far more than the cost of adding a ton of CO2 to the atmosphere (in Germany, currently around 10€/ton, I believe). In principle, removing a ton of CO2 needs to be cheaper than the cost of adding a ton of CO2.

imtringued 6y ago
The price for a CO2 certificate is around 25€ per ton. The biggest problem is that lots of emission sources are still excluded from the CO2 trade and that businesses receive a certain amount of CO2 certificates for free. https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/co2-european-emission-allowances https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/co2-european...
- jandrese 6y ago
  The problem with CO2 certificates is that they aren't backed by anything. We had no priceable scalable means of removing CO2 from the atmosphere so those prices are arbitrary. If people were serious about using markets solve this problem the price of CO2 credits would reflect what it actually takes to remove that much CO2 from the atmosphere and they would be much more expensive. There would be companies forming just to get those credits and trying to undercut one another looking for more efficient ways to sequester CO2 permanently. But we can't because it would drive up the price of gas and with it everything else in the economy. People would blame other countries for cheating and the Illumiati for taking their jobs. Then politicians would lose their seats and the work they did would be reversed.
  - crucialfelix 6y ago
    Carbon removal and prevention projects are certified. This creates a certificate which can then be sold on the market. https://www.goldstandard.org/guided-tour/project-developers#project-developers https://www.goldstandard.org/guided-tour/project-developers#... When direct removal costs are below the price of the CER then that will become the primary way that certs are produced.
- Faaak 6y ago
  27€/ton yesterday: https://www.eex.com/en/market-data/environmental-markets/auction-market https://www.eex.com/en/market-data/environmental-markets/auc...
Klathmon 6y ago
Then let's raise the cost of adding a ton of CO2 to the atmosphere. We have been encouraging pollution since it's cheaper to just dump it than to reduce their production significantly or invest in capturing it. If the cost to remove it is $80-$100 USD, then that should be the cost of adding it. We should start demanding they either pay the costs associated with someone else having to deal with it, or reduce how much they dump into the air in the first place.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  >Then let's raise the cost of adding a ton of CO2 to the atmosphere. >If the cost to remove it is $80-$100 USD, then that should be the cost of adding it. We should start demanding they either pay the costs associated with someone else having to deal with it, or reduce how much they dump into the air in the first place. This works until all the people who have enough trouble achieving a decent standard of living vote you out of office or revolt (depending on the system of government of the country in-question). Few things universally piss people off quite as well as standards of living going backwards. The cost of removing CO2 needs to be cheaper. The cost of emitting less CO2 for a given standard of living needs to be cheaper. Carbon taxes that reflect the current price of removing carbon from the atmosphere are socially and politically unsustainable.
  - GVIrish 6y ago
    Correctly pricing in the negative externalities of burning fossil fuels is what will help us shift away from fossil fuels. And if people are gonna be upset about a decrease in standard of living because they can't buy gas guzzling cars anymore or air travel is more expensive, they're really not going to like the drop in standard of living from climate change. Coastal flooding and storm surge is already destroying billions of dollars in real estate value. Houston has seen three 500-year floods in less than 5 years. We've seen the devastation from large scale wildfires in Australia and California. Subsistence fishermen in some parts of the world are already seeing their fisheries collapse. If we don't get climate change under control we're not going to be talking about temporary pain while we shift to cleaner technology. We'll be looking at large scale climate refugee crises, collapses of industries, collapses of governments, and wide scale human misery.
Someone 6y ago
“In principle, removing a ton of CO2 needs to be cheaper than the cost of adding a ton of CO2 (in Germany, currently around 10€/ton, I believe).” I think it’s around $25 or €25 at the moment (neither https://ember-climate.org/carbon-price-viewer/ https://ember-climate.org/carbon-price-viewer/ nor https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/co2-european-emission-allowances https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/co2-european... are clear about the currency) The EU emission trading system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Trading_Scheme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Tradin...), isn’t perfect, but it is having some effect, and restrictions are getting tightened over time.
hyko 6y ago
In principle, removing a ton of CO2 needs to be cheaper than the cost of adding a ton of CO2. And it will be, at some point in the future; it’s not intended to compete with preventing CO2 emissions today. We need to start work on the technology now though, even if it’s not immediately scaleable. The technology to remove excess CO2 from the atmosphere at scale will be required over the 21st Century to return the CO2 levels to pre-industrial levels, which our forecasts have priced in.
ehnto 6y ago
I agree with you. But I wish we could get our shit together, decide that maybe this is a problem out of scope of the economy and we should solve it with the tools we have regardless of cost. Print some money to pay for it, push the cost downstream through inflation, doesn't matter the mechanism. The work needs to be done either way, but we should start now.

by sveme 6y ago

imtringued 6y ago

The price for a CO2 certificate is around 25€ per ton. The biggest problem is that lots of emission sources are still excluded from the CO2 trade and that businesses receive a certain amount of CO2 certificates for free. https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/co2-european-emission-allowances https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/co2-european...

jandrese 6y ago
The problem with CO2 certificates is that they aren't backed by anything. We had no priceable scalable means of removing CO2 from the atmosphere so those prices are arbitrary. If people were serious about using markets solve this problem the price of CO2 credits would reflect what it actually takes to remove that much CO2 from the atmosphere and they would be much more expensive. There would be companies forming just to get those credits and trying to undercut one another looking for more efficient ways to sequester CO2 permanently. But we can't because it would drive up the price of gas and with it everything else in the economy. People would blame other countries for cheating and the Illumiati for taking their jobs. Then politicians would lose their seats and the work they did would be reversed.
- crucialfelix 6y ago
  Carbon removal and prevention projects are certified. This creates a certificate which can then be sold on the market. https://www.goldstandard.org/guided-tour/project-developers#project-developers https://www.goldstandard.org/guided-tour/project-developers#... When direct removal costs are below the price of the CER then that will become the primary way that certs are produced.
Faaak 6y ago
27€/ton yesterday: https://www.eex.com/en/market-data/environmental-markets/auction-market https://www.eex.com/en/market-data/environmental-markets/auc...

Klathmon 6y ago

Then let's raise the cost of adding a ton of CO2 to the atmosphere. We have been encouraging pollution since it's cheaper to just dump it than to reduce their production significantly or invest in capturing it. If the cost to remove it is $80-$100 USD, then that should be the cost of adding it. We should start demanding they either pay the costs associated with someone else having to deal with it, or reduce how much they dump into the air in the first place.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
>Then let's raise the cost of adding a ton of CO2 to the atmosphere. >If the cost to remove it is $80-$100 USD, then that should be the cost of adding it. We should start demanding they either pay the costs associated with someone else having to deal with it, or reduce how much they dump into the air in the first place. This works until all the people who have enough trouble achieving a decent standard of living vote you out of office or revolt (depending on the system of government of the country in-question). Few things universally piss people off quite as well as standards of living going backwards. The cost of removing CO2 needs to be cheaper. The cost of emitting less CO2 for a given standard of living needs to be cheaper. Carbon taxes that reflect the current price of removing carbon from the atmosphere are socially and politically unsustainable.
- GVIrish 6y ago
  Correctly pricing in the negative externalities of burning fossil fuels is what will help us shift away from fossil fuels. And if people are gonna be upset about a decrease in standard of living because they can't buy gas guzzling cars anymore or air travel is more expensive, they're really not going to like the drop in standard of living from climate change. Coastal flooding and storm surge is already destroying billions of dollars in real estate value. Houston has seen three 500-year floods in less than 5 years. We've seen the devastation from large scale wildfires in Australia and California. Subsistence fishermen in some parts of the world are already seeing their fisheries collapse. If we don't get climate change under control we're not going to be talking about temporary pain while we shift to cleaner technology. We'll be looking at large scale climate refugee crises, collapses of industries, collapses of governments, and wide scale human misery.

Someone 6y ago

“In principle, removing a ton of CO2 needs to be cheaper than the cost of adding a ton of CO2 (in Germany, currently around 10€/ton, I believe).” I think it’s around $25 or €25 at the moment (neither https://ember-climate.org/carbon-price-viewer/ https://ember-climate.org/carbon-price-viewer/ nor https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/co2-european-emission-allowances https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/co2-european... are clear about the currency) The EU emission trading system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Trading_Scheme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Tradin...), isn’t perfect, but it is having some effect, and restrictions are getting tightened over time.

hyko 6y ago

In principle, removing a ton of CO2 needs to be cheaper than the cost of adding a ton of CO2. And it will be, at some point in the future; it’s not intended to compete with preventing CO2 emissions today. We need to start work on the technology now though, even if it’s not immediately scaleable. The technology to remove excess CO2 from the atmosphere at scale will be required over the 21st Century to return the CO2 levels to pre-industrial levels, which our forecasts have priced in.

ehnto 6y ago

I agree with you. But I wish we could get our shit together, decide that maybe this is a problem out of scope of the economy and we should solve it with the tools we have regardless of cost. Print some money to pay for it, push the cost downstream through inflation, doesn't matter the mechanism. The work needs to be done either way, but we should start now.