4 ms·

While ideal, this isn't very realistic. Likelier is that we will slowly get off carbon intensive energy sources and production mechanisms, but fail to move off

While ideal, this isn't very realistic. Likelier is that we will slowly get off carbon intensive energy sources and production mechanisms, but fail to move off them entirely for a long period. In this period it is essential that we invest in the technology required to stablize our climate, i.e. carbon capture. With the proper clean energy generation capacity these systems can exist in harmony. Where carbon capture buys us more time to get more people on board with cleaner mechanisms. In addition, as this page points out, sustained investment is essential to technological development. By pushing down the cost of capture we allow for new economic opportunities, which provide both incentives (carbon tax for example) and direct benefits (using that tax income for capture).

el_nahual 6y ago
I agree it's not realistic, but it's actually more realistic than the alternative. The key here is that every new emission today multiplies because of positive feedback. So every day that passes, the problem of scrubbing enough carbon actually becomes harder--whereas the problem of simply not putting it out there keeps the same magnitude. Put differently, it costs "one less airplane trip" to prevent the carbon associated with 1 flight out of the air, but it costs an increasing amount of trips to get it out. Lastly... we know how to keep carbon out of the air. It's a politically difficult problem but one with a known solution. Just stop doing things. And stop doing them by taxing them to oblivion.... whereas we don't actually know how to get carbon out of the air in a clean way with sufficient magnitude in order to prevent runaway growth. And it goes without saying that in that scenario we'd probably have to reduce emissions as well! The argument that reducing emissions to ~0 is unrealistic is true, but it's more realistic than the alternative.
- colincooke 6y ago
  This isn't entirely true. There are many high benefit activities we should target (flights are a good one), however there are also others that are much more difficult to reduce (energy production in emerging economies for example). I think my main issue is that zero, or effectively zero, is too high a bar. Your thinking is in-line with mine. That we should treat carbon emission as an economic problem, as in we need to get to net zero, so what is the most effective (by $$$) way to get there. My bet is that it's a mix of reduction + capture, and we should pursue the most ecost-effective mix.

el_nahual 6y ago

I agree it's not realistic, but it's actually more realistic than the alternative. The key here is that every new emission today multiplies because of positive feedback. So every day that passes, the problem of scrubbing enough carbon actually becomes harder--whereas the problem of simply not putting it out there keeps the same magnitude. Put differently, it costs "one less airplane trip" to prevent the carbon associated with 1 flight out of the air, but it costs an increasing amount of trips to get it out. Lastly... we know how to keep carbon out of the air. It's a politically difficult problem but one with a known solution. Just stop doing things. And stop doing them by taxing them to oblivion.... whereas we don't actually know how to get carbon out of the air in a clean way with sufficient magnitude in order to prevent runaway growth. And it goes without saying that in that scenario we'd probably have to reduce emissions as well! The argument that reducing emissions to ~0 is unrealistic is true, but it's more realistic than the alternative.

colincooke 6y ago
This isn't entirely true. There are many high benefit activities we should target (flights are a good one), however there are also others that are much more difficult to reduce (energy production in emerging economies for example). I think my main issue is that zero, or effectively zero, is too high a bar. Your thinking is in-line with mine. That we should treat carbon emission as an economic problem, as in we need to get to net zero, so what is the most effective (by $$$) way to get there. My bet is that it's a mix of reduction + capture, and we should pursue the most ecost-effective mix.