9 ms·

5 Billion Cubic Meters of Oil are produced Annually by humanity. 30Bn Tons of CO2 generated. 60% is un-sequesterable because it is small and/or mobile. 40% i

5 Billion Cubic Meters of Oil are produced Annually by humanity. 30Bn Tons of CO2 generated. 60% is un-sequesterable because it is small and/or mobile. 40% is sequestrable and large scale/stationary. 12 Billion Cubic Meters of CO2 are thus sequestrable. You must liquefy CO2 before putting it into the ground. 50% -70% efficiency in converting it to a liquid that we can shove into the ground. 6 to 8.4 Billion Cubic Meters of Liquefied CO2 are thus Sequestrable. Shoving 6 to 8.4 billion cubic meters of liquefied CO2 into ground is no small matter. Think about it this way, humanity built an entire industry focused on an annual extraction of 5Bn Cubic Meters of Oil over a time span of 100+ years with refineries and complex processes spanning multiple countries, geographies, regulations, wars, and land rights. Also, who’s going to buy sequestered carbon? The reality is that something like this will require spinning up an entire Trillion dollar market.

EGreg 6y ago
What about planting TREES? Also - nature seems to be doing it in the north. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-green...
- kumarski 6y ago
  I don't know. I'm not bullish on the "just plant trees, it will fix everything about CO2 emissions" movement....I have my doubts. Most countermeasures seem irrelevant as long as 1/3rd of the world relies on lignite ash and brown coal as primary energy sources.
  - BurningFrog 6y ago
    There is no one thing that will "fix everything". This will be solved by many small things adding up.
- Retric 6y ago
  It’s a question of scale, if you want to actually make a difference you need to cut them down and store the wood underground, then grow new trees and repeat. Doing that takes real effort which then needs to be paid for.
  - snicker7 6y ago
    > takes real effort which then needs to be paid for Verses the many climate change options that are free and without any effort?
    - Retric 6y ago
      Again orders of magnitude. Investing in solar and wind essentially pays for itself. Programs like Energy Star leverage market forces to make enormous changes essentially for free. Directly taxing carbon and adding it to general revenue would make a huge difference without spending that money on climate. Directing that revenue to carbon sequestration however requires continuously paying 100’s of thousands of people and building infrastructure etc. The benefit is definitely there, but the cost benefit ratio is vastly harder to justify. After a 90% reduction in CO2 emissions sequestering the last 10% of CO2 might be more economically viable. But, for now better options exist.
      - Qwertious 6y ago
        Energy star doesn't necessarily reduce emissions - it improves efficiency, but that makes people less worried about wasting electricity and so they use it more often. Jevon's Paradox was basically this but applied to coal.
        Retric 6y ago
        Jevon’s Paradox would suggest an increase in the US electrical energy use over time, but that stalled out. Take a step back and consider what using electricity means. Home heating for example doesn’t benefit from increasing indoor temperatures to 100f. 100” TV’s use more energy than 40” TV’s, but they also cost a lot more to buy. Essentially people only have so much money and significant improvements in efficiency mean other costs become more important. They might be able to heat a larger house, but they can’t afford the house to be heated.
- jasonlaramburu 6y ago
  There are challenges with tree planting as well. Tree plantations tend to be monocultures which crowd out native species. Also the carbon stored in trees is typically only stable for 40-50 years due to fire, tree death and decomposition.
  - Valgrim 6y ago
    Do they have to be? I remember that a lot of people in the last 50 years or so have been trying to apply permaculture principles on forestry (like the Fukuoka food forest). As for the carbon stability, the forest renews itself, so if you plant trees in an area where there were none before, the carbon captured the forest itself is pretty permanent. If you want to further capture carbon, you can always cut the trees and use them for timber, and eventually pyrolyse the wood to prevent decomposition and put it in the ground (which can increase soil quality).
  - Melting_Harps 6y ago
    > There are challenges with tree planting as well. Tree plantations tend to be monocultures which crowd out native species. Also the carbon stored in trees is typically only stable for 40-50 years due to fire, tree death and decomposition. That's a very limited view on a system that is regenerative by design. You're right that most are planted as mono-cultures which present some issues, and their individual life cycle spans that much time on average. But the idea is that a living ecosystem/forest that is not only able to sequester carbon via tress but also allow for other life to thrive (moss, grass, flowers etc...) throughout its entire existence is a net positive, and has much more efficacy than creating some rigged Market as seen with carbon credits that obscure the scam through layers of obfuscation. We've seen how quickly Nature can correct itself when Human activity is significantly curtailed, it stands to reason that with some adjustments to commerce and the labour market we can enhance this with such undertakings with efficient C3/C4 or CAM plants to accommodate the environment its planted in. Graham Handcock in his book 'America Before' argues that the Amazon was the planned undertaking of Ancient people that not only provided them with sustenance and medicine, but as a result of it and unbeknownst to them would serve as the lungs of the Earth for millennia after their collapse. I've come to the conclusion that while Market based solutions are favourable means where ever possible, the reality is when it comes to Climate Change and Environmental factors Humans are just to myopic to have it as the sole basis for solutions. Everyone involved just ends up colluding with one another for personal gain and only a fraction of the progress is made while still being touted as a monumental success when in reality if Nation-State actually fulfilled their supposed purpose they'd see it as a matter of National Security and allot a significant portion as a deterrent to unsustainable population influxes. Humanitarian crises from environmental disasters and the displacement that follows takes a massive toll on its infrastructure and economy, not to mention the resentment from the local populace that has to deal with the increase in poverty and crime to the their community that often follows from these hapless people's plight. The mass migration to the EU from Africa was devastating to see first hand, so many people lived in the parks and other public spaces because the country that would take them in could not accommodate them in a humane manner in time or at all and they slipped through the cracks and tried to make due however possible. Many just ended up succumbing to substance abuse and crime after the trauma and stress of their lives being in shambles, often through no fault of their own as a victim of war and environmental damage (Syria, Yemen, Libya, Egypt, Somalia, Bangladesh). I'm totally for open borders, as we should view ourselves as Human beings before anything else; but the nation-state model has proven itself to be entirely inadequate at handling COIVD, why should it be in charge of regulating something like this without succumbing to the same corruption we've seen in stock market, banking sectors? At this point we should see this as an opportunity to give many young students and young adults afflicted by ever diminishing opportunities in the traditional labor market some much valuable and applicable work experience and the opportunity to get involved in massive environmental undertakings that will be necessary and commonplace in their lifetime to help combat the affects of Climate Change from previous generations. Investing as much as needed to that end will play dividends for the entire Earth that will outlive most nation-states (~200 years for the most prosperous ones and much less for the rest), and the truth is you can do a lot with limited resources with the right motivation, these movements really lacked effective Human Capital just as much, if not more, than monetary Capital. I did it in my 20s, and it really helped me learn a great deal and it refined my skill set which allowed me to be able to move into several Industries that I took interest in but couldn't break into because of a specialized university education. I was at a food drive where the goal went from feeding 10,000 families to 20,000 in a matter of days, it was a logistical nightmare and was not really planned very well with not much structure to it besides some COVID screening, and a time to show up. So I thought I'd put some of my previous experience as a manager in large scale events like this and in logistics in the automotive Industry to the test while applying some of the theoretical six sigma/lean methods I learned from my Supply Chain courses this year and all it took was a ~3 hours into my time on the assembly line before we 5x our output when I arrived. We went from 20 something people running at an unsustainable pace being burned out to make 1/5 of the output due to inefficient assembly lines and methods to about 35 strategically placed people on that line and just streamlining the process and clearing up the workflow area to yield a 5x increase. It was hard, and it took a toll on my body as I could feel all the injuries and the experience earned from years before, but I could tell it was worth it when we not only met the goal but had actually exceeded the target and had enough excess to donate more than expected due to a reduction of loss according to the event organizers.
- adrianN 6y ago
  You would need to fell and bury more trees than we dig up coal. That is quite difficult.
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    That's true, but you don't need to bury the whole tree. You can fell the tree, gassify it, and get a steady stream of fuel and pure carbon. The process is exothermic and produces enough energy to be self sustaining and produce excess fuel. Bury the carbon and use the gas to produce energy and you have a forest that is a net reducer of carbon and a net positive energy producer.
- snicker7 6y ago
  Bamboo can sequester considerably more carbon per acre-year.
- batushka3 6y ago
  Planting trees you won't create faux sector for CC, fueled by taxes and subsidies, where business could strive.
- sergeykish 6y ago
  > It takes about 1,025 trees to offset the average American's emissions [1] That's half of dry land area: earth population * 1 hectare / person / sum earth continent area 0.516 (2019 estimate) [2] that's fertile half: world arable land ≈ 0.46 × land area on the earth ( 1.4912×10^8 km^2 ) [3] Insufficient. [1] https://savingnature.com/offset-your-carbon-footprint-carbon-calculator/ https://savingnature.com/offset-your-carbon-footprint-carbon... [2] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=earth+population+*+1+hectare+%2F+person+%2F+sum+earth+continent+area https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=earth+population+*+1+h... [3] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=world+arable+land https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=world+arable+land
  - Traster 6y ago
    I would assume that the average American is emiting way more than the average human, so you can't just multiply it up by earth's population.
    - sergeykish 6y ago
      And forests are different: > Northeast, maple–beech–birch forests > 25 year old forest: 1,760 lbs of CO2 per acre per year > Northeast, white and red pine forests > 25 year old forest: 9,826 lbs of CO2 per acre per year [1] With global CO2 emissions [2]: 35 billion t / (2000 lbs / acre) 1.561×10^8 km^2 (square kilometers) ≈ land area on the earth ( 1.4912×10^8 km^2 ) [3] maple–beech–birch forests would not cut. 35 billion t / (10000 lbs / acre) 3.123×10^7 km^2 (square kilometers) ≈ 0.46 × total area of crop land on Earth (2012 estimate) ( ≈ 2.62×10^7 mi^2 ) [4] pine if used on half of crop land. That's managed forest, no wild forests allowed. [1] http://medcraveonline.com/FREIJ/FREIJ-02-00040.pdf http://medcraveonline.com/FREIJ/FREIJ-02-00040.pdf [2] https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions [3] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=35+billion+t+%2F+%282000+lbs+%2F+acre%29 https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=35+billion+t+%2F+%2820... [4] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=35+billion+t+%2F+%2810000+lbs+%2F+acre%29 https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=35+billion+t+%2F+%2810...
    - mhh__ 6y ago
- xyzzyz 6y ago
  We don’t have nearly enough land area for that, and even if we did, we’d need to cut and bury these trees underground, if we want the sequestration to be more than temporary. Seems silly to do that while digging up coal at the same time.
AbrahamParangi 6y ago
I did some napkin math at one point and I believe the limiting factor is energy. You need more energy than can be generated using contemporary sources.
- marcosdumay 6y ago
  You need to burn about 10kg of oil to get enough energy to liquefy a ton of it.
IronRanger 6y ago
There are still countries around the world which subsidise fossil fuels. Not indirect subsidies like exporation writeoffs for corporations, but actual incentives for consumers to consume in the form of below-market pricing. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/value-of-fossil-fuel-subsidies-by-fuel-in-the-top-25-countries-2019 https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/value-of-foss... And even without subsidies, petrol and diesel are undertaxed in almost every country. Properly taxing fossil fuel is surely a more cost-effective preliminary step compared to schemes like CCS.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  While this is true, there is a reason why so many poor countries have to subsidize fossil fuels. In those countries, if you are middle class or below, without those subsidies, you might not be able to heat your house, go to work, or fuel your tractor. So unless you want revolts, it's not going to be possible to remove those subsidies unless massive investment at a world-wide scale in nuclear, hydro, and other types of renewables, as well as a serious ramp up of cheap (3000-9000$) EV production, actually makes it possible for the average Joe there to survive without fossil fuel subsidies. There are also other countries that are richer in which this doesn't apply, for which there is no excuse.
  - fulafel 6y ago
    Changing those subsidies to income tranfers of money would be cost neutral and strictly better or equal for everyone and save on emissions.
    - ivirshup 6y ago
      The countries that I can think of which subsidize oil also produce it. Plus, it's easier to embezzle money than oil – so better to keep that.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      It wouldn't be. Governments in such poor countries often buy fossil fuels below international market prices as they produce them, and directly giving money is problematic because a lot of people do not have bank accounts, and that fraud and embezzlement is a huge issue. I agree that they should be made progressive and thus reduced immediately and phased out as soon as possible, but it's just not feasible the remove them completely immediately.
watertom 6y ago
Don't forget that the permafrost is thawing and it's starting to release massive amounts of CO2, much more than previously thought. The thawing is releasing massive amounts of Methane, and Nitrous Oxide which are far more impactful than CO2. Due to warming temperatures more ice is melting and it's raising the temperature of the oceans and it's causing them to be more acidic, both of which is bad for phytoplankton populations, which have already declined steeply. Phytoplankton is the basis for the entire marine ecosystem. Like most collapses, a declines happen gradually then suddenly it crashes, my fear is that the phytoplankton population will crash soon, and when it does we're in deep trouble. 20% of the atmosphere's oxygen comes from phytoplankton, more than all the world's rain forests combined. The ocean is responsible for somewhere between 50-80% of the atmosphere's oxygen, there is no telling what happens when the phytoplankton population crashes. We could see a huge drop in oxygen levels in the atmosphere very quickly. 30% of the world's population relies on the oceans for their primary source of protein, and about the same number of people rely on the marine ecosystem for their livelihood, when the phytoplankton population crashes, those people will be in serious, serious trouble. Reducing our carbon output isn't enough, slowing an increase still means we are increasing concentration levels, we need to be removing more than we are releasing, and I don't see any possible way to achieve that with any known technology. I don't think we can stop, or even slow what we've started. The earth is now seeking it's new equilibrium state, it's hard to say if we are part of that equilibrium state.
- rayiner 6y ago
  The permafrost tipping point theory is not accepted science: https://earther.gizmodo.com/climate-scientists-debunk-point-of-no-return-paper-ev-1845667916 https://earther.gizmodo.com/climate-scientists-debunk-point-... Also, oxygen levels would not drop rapidly. It would take millions of years: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/destructive-amazon-fires-do-not-threaten-earths-oxygen-expert-says/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/destructive-amazo...
  - Diederich 6y ago
    Correct, it's not currently widely accepted. In many ways, science is more 'conservative' than so-called 'conservative' political parties, which is probably a good thing. However, there's a lot of emerging that supports the concept that there will be a large amount of methane release from the arctic over the next few decades. Very large. If this happens, and I truly hope it does not, then the impact will be enormous and devastating. While such a release isn't sure, the combination of possibility and impact is more than enough for us to deeply consider it during policy considerations.
GhostVII 6y ago
People will buy sequestered carbon if there is a market for it. Some kind of cap-and-trade system for emissions would make it profitable to do carbon capture once cheaper methods of reducing emissions have been exhausted.
cogman10 6y ago
I think research still needs to be poured into carbon sequestration, but I agree with your overall analysis. Carbon sequestration is like ocean desalination. Sure, it can be done, but it's a lot easier and a lot more efficient to start with a non-salty body of water. Stopping carbon emissions is a lot more important in the short term. Long term, I can see carbon capture being used as an alternative to push for a carbon neutral or negative economy. We'll likely need captured carbon for shipping, airplane travel, and plastics. A positive of carbon capture is that you can pretty much set it up anywhere. You may be able to setup a capture facility at major fuel hubs to cut down on transport costs.
baq 6y ago
> Also, who’s going to buy sequestered carbon? the free market doesn't apply here, because the climate doesn't have buying power, nor does it care. it's a political decision on a world level.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  The free market doesn't apply in that sense, but it is clearly the way forward in the sense that Carbon Taxation/Pricing and other schemes are clearly going to be more effectively than government intervention.
  - baq 6y ago
    oh i think we are in agreement - carbon tax and/or carbon dividends are political decisions, after all. the market will adapt to regulations, hopefully with benefit for the climate. it's just not easy to get there, apparently politicians are too afraid and/or have too much money from kickbacks from fossil industry.
- DesiLurker 6y ago
  >climate doesn't have buying power though I agree with the conclusion thats a bad argument, people do have buying power and they do care IF theymake the connection. that said even if it does not makes financial sense we should still do it because 1) survival of biosphere should trump survival of economic system. 2) people are ignoring the potential to create new market here and the possibility of creating an entirely new industry is quite enticing.
  - baq 6y ago
    our climate situation fits pretty much perfectly to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons. given that, i see no way forward other than a coordinated policy change world-wide (otherwise everybody who can count money will move their polluting assets to places which don't accept the policy). the one way we could sort of proceed is to make being climate-friendly have financial sense. this is the job of taxes and incentives, i.e. regulations. people with money hate changing regulations that got them money and they have money to prevent changing these regulations. countries without money look at countries with money and ask why they have to suffer if those guys could pollute how much they wanted and got rich in the process. the challenge to get a compromise here is unprecedented and the clock is merciless.
kiliantics 6y ago
Sounds like a good scheme for global redistribution of wealth. Get the richest countries to put an annual trillion dollar budget together for buying carbon, divided up by country based on their GDP. Obviously, no one with the power to do so will really want that redistribution to happen though.
snarf21 6y ago
Humans are selfish and just don't care. Once mother nature kills off most of our population, carbon will slow sequester itself and the earth will heal but it will take centuries. The earth just can't sustain food and energy for 8B people. My guess it is more like 2B max.
- otikik 6y ago
  > can't sustain food and energy for 8B people It totally can. What it can't sustain is 8B people not working together.
  - snarf21 6y ago
    That is exactly my point. Humans are selfish. We have a history of destruction even at our own expense. I wish it were otherwise but wishing it doesn't make it so. I was merely saying at 2B the earth is okay despite us not caring or working together.
- anonuser123456 6y ago
  I would wager the earth can sustain 100 billion people and will eventually do so with technology.
  - snarf21 6y ago
    Could you expound? Is this something you think possible in 20 years? 50? 1000?
    - anonuser123456 6y ago
      Sure. 1. Robotics will make the world rich enough. 2. Synthetic food (bioreactors) will make it cheap enough. 3. DT fusion + solar will power it. The technology part is less than 100 years away at scale. Probably less.
wing-_-nuts 6y ago
So, in eons past, carbon was sequestered naturally via calcium carbonate (CaCO3) if I'm following your math we'd need 4B tons of Ca / yr to sequester that yes? Of course, that's vastly more than we produce a year, but it is the 5th most abundant element. Could we scale up CaCO3 production to sequester carbon?
- ip26 6y ago
  My mind wanders to farming calcifying zooplankton. I wonder how hard it is to remove them from the carbon cycle.
  - wing-_-nuts 6y ago
    You also have to consider that as the oceans absorb more co2, they become more acidic, making it harder for plankton to form shells and sequester carbon.
- jackdeansmith 6y ago
  The term you're looking for is "enhanced weathering"
jartelt 6y ago
And... spinning up that trillion dollar market would likely be worth every penny if it prevents continued warming, prevents further significant sea level rise, prevents migration crises due to flooding/droughts/etc, and prevents further ocean acidification.
bit_logic 6y ago
What you described can be the path to fast action on climate change. Only a few more steps are required: * Cover every rooftop, every parking lot, every desert with solar panels as much as we can. Cover every windy plain with wind turbines. Take all the excess power and instead of building expensive batteries, use it to power this CO2 -> synthetic liquid fuel process. * Carbon tax on any "fossil" fuel sources (anything from the ground). Make it expensive so the synthetic fuel is competitive. There's other ways too (like requiring X% mix of carbon neutral synthetic fuel, just like they do now with ethanol). Slowly increase the percent over time. * All the old infrastructure (existing cars, gas power plants, ships, trains, buses, airplanes, etc.) becomes more and more carbon neutral as the fuel becomes more synthetic. Even with the most optimistic EV car adoption projections, there will still be millions of gas cars out there. Other old carbon fuel based infrastructure (such as power plants) are hard to replace because solar/wind are not steady sources of power. This path addressees the weaknesses of solar/wind (how to store excess energy) and how to quickly transition existing infrastructure to carbon neutral.
- anthropodie 6y ago
  > cover every rooftop .. What about the carbon we add doing this? I mean manufacturing, transport and all such indirect sources of carbon.
  - CyanBird 6y ago
    > What about the carbon we add doing this? That's why OP is talking of decarbonificating the oil production itself, so as things start to decarbinify they will continue accelerating on that road as other processes become more decarbonized The entire aluminum production on Iceland for example is already decarbonized
  - bit_logic 6y ago
    Everything currently requires fossil fuel sourced energy to create it. So the question is, over the expected lifespan of the object, will it create more energy than was required to produce it? Solar panels expected lifespan is about 30 years. Installation, transport, etc. are all a fixed initial carbon cost. Studies and analysis have already been done (google search for studies from NREL) and the initial carbon cost payback is about 3-4 years of a typical 30 year solar panel lifespan. So 27 years of effectively carbon negative power generation. But also consider the downstream effects. Once you have a carbon negative power source like solar in place, the carbon cost to create other things drops as well (since they use less and less power from fossil fuel sourced power).
m463 6y ago
A better rule of thumb is 1 gallon of gasoline is ~20 lbs of C02. That puts things on a more personal level. Another one is 1 lb of C02 per kwh of electricity. That one is subject to obfuscation or confusion because it is dependent on the source of electricity.

EGreg 6y ago

What about planting TREES? Also - nature seems to be doing it in the north. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-green...

kumarski 6y ago
I don't know. I'm not bullish on the "just plant trees, it will fix everything about CO2 emissions" movement....I have my doubts. Most countermeasures seem irrelevant as long as 1/3rd of the world relies on lignite ash and brown coal as primary energy sources.
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  There is no one thing that will "fix everything". This will be solved by many small things adding up.
Retric 6y ago
It’s a question of scale, if you want to actually make a difference you need to cut them down and store the wood underground, then grow new trees and repeat. Doing that takes real effort which then needs to be paid for.
- snicker7 6y ago
  > takes real effort which then needs to be paid for Verses the many climate change options that are free and without any effort?
  - Retric 6y ago
    Again orders of magnitude. Investing in solar and wind essentially pays for itself. Programs like Energy Star leverage market forces to make enormous changes essentially for free. Directly taxing carbon and adding it to general revenue would make a huge difference without spending that money on climate. Directing that revenue to carbon sequestration however requires continuously paying 100’s of thousands of people and building infrastructure etc. The benefit is definitely there, but the cost benefit ratio is vastly harder to justify. After a 90% reduction in CO2 emissions sequestering the last 10% of CO2 might be more economically viable. But, for now better options exist.
    - Qwertious 6y ago
      Energy star doesn't necessarily reduce emissions - it improves efficiency, but that makes people less worried about wasting electricity and so they use it more often. Jevon's Paradox was basically this but applied to coal.
      - Retric 6y ago
        Jevon’s Paradox would suggest an increase in the US electrical energy use over time, but that stalled out. Take a step back and consider what using electricity means. Home heating for example doesn’t benefit from increasing indoor temperatures to 100f. 100” TV’s use more energy than 40” TV’s, but they also cost a lot more to buy. Essentially people only have so much money and significant improvements in efficiency mean other costs become more important. They might be able to heat a larger house, but they can’t afford the house to be heated.
jasonlaramburu 6y ago
There are challenges with tree planting as well. Tree plantations tend to be monocultures which crowd out native species. Also the carbon stored in trees is typically only stable for 40-50 years due to fire, tree death and decomposition.
- Valgrim 6y ago
  Do they have to be? I remember that a lot of people in the last 50 years or so have been trying to apply permaculture principles on forestry (like the Fukuoka food forest). As for the carbon stability, the forest renews itself, so if you plant trees in an area where there were none before, the carbon captured the forest itself is pretty permanent. If you want to further capture carbon, you can always cut the trees and use them for timber, and eventually pyrolyse the wood to prevent decomposition and put it in the ground (which can increase soil quality).
- Melting_Harps 6y ago
  > There are challenges with tree planting as well. Tree plantations tend to be monocultures which crowd out native species. Also the carbon stored in trees is typically only stable for 40-50 years due to fire, tree death and decomposition. That's a very limited view on a system that is regenerative by design. You're right that most are planted as mono-cultures which present some issues, and their individual life cycle spans that much time on average. But the idea is that a living ecosystem/forest that is not only able to sequester carbon via tress but also allow for other life to thrive (moss, grass, flowers etc...) throughout its entire existence is a net positive, and has much more efficacy than creating some rigged Market as seen with carbon credits that obscure the scam through layers of obfuscation. We've seen how quickly Nature can correct itself when Human activity is significantly curtailed, it stands to reason that with some adjustments to commerce and the labour market we can enhance this with such undertakings with efficient C3/C4 or CAM plants to accommodate the environment its planted in. Graham Handcock in his book 'America Before' argues that the Amazon was the planned undertaking of Ancient people that not only provided them with sustenance and medicine, but as a result of it and unbeknownst to them would serve as the lungs of the Earth for millennia after their collapse. I've come to the conclusion that while Market based solutions are favourable means where ever possible, the reality is when it comes to Climate Change and Environmental factors Humans are just to myopic to have it as the sole basis for solutions. Everyone involved just ends up colluding with one another for personal gain and only a fraction of the progress is made while still being touted as a monumental success when in reality if Nation-State actually fulfilled their supposed purpose they'd see it as a matter of National Security and allot a significant portion as a deterrent to unsustainable population influxes. Humanitarian crises from environmental disasters and the displacement that follows takes a massive toll on its infrastructure and economy, not to mention the resentment from the local populace that has to deal with the increase in poverty and crime to the their community that often follows from these hapless people's plight. The mass migration to the EU from Africa was devastating to see first hand, so many people lived in the parks and other public spaces because the country that would take them in could not accommodate them in a humane manner in time or at all and they slipped through the cracks and tried to make due however possible. Many just ended up succumbing to substance abuse and crime after the trauma and stress of their lives being in shambles, often through no fault of their own as a victim of war and environmental damage (Syria, Yemen, Libya, Egypt, Somalia, Bangladesh). I'm totally for open borders, as we should view ourselves as Human beings before anything else; but the nation-state model has proven itself to be entirely inadequate at handling COIVD, why should it be in charge of regulating something like this without succumbing to the same corruption we've seen in stock market, banking sectors? At this point we should see this as an opportunity to give many young students and young adults afflicted by ever diminishing opportunities in the traditional labor market some much valuable and applicable work experience and the opportunity to get involved in massive environmental undertakings that will be necessary and commonplace in their lifetime to help combat the affects of Climate Change from previous generations. Investing as much as needed to that end will play dividends for the entire Earth that will outlive most nation-states (~200 years for the most prosperous ones and much less for the rest), and the truth is you can do a lot with limited resources with the right motivation, these movements really lacked effective Human Capital just as much, if not more, than monetary Capital. I did it in my 20s, and it really helped me learn a great deal and it refined my skill set which allowed me to be able to move into several Industries that I took interest in but couldn't break into because of a specialized university education. I was at a food drive where the goal went from feeding 10,000 families to 20,000 in a matter of days, it was a logistical nightmare and was not really planned very well with not much structure to it besides some COVID screening, and a time to show up. So I thought I'd put some of my previous experience as a manager in large scale events like this and in logistics in the automotive Industry to the test while applying some of the theoretical six sigma/lean methods I learned from my Supply Chain courses this year and all it took was a ~3 hours into my time on the assembly line before we 5x our output when I arrived. We went from 20 something people running at an unsustainable pace being burned out to make 1/5 of the output due to inefficient assembly lines and methods to about 35 strategically placed people on that line and just streamlining the process and clearing up the workflow area to yield a 5x increase. It was hard, and it took a toll on my body as I could feel all the injuries and the experience earned from years before, but I could tell it was worth it when we not only met the goal but had actually exceeded the target and had enough excess to donate more than expected due to a reduction of loss according to the event organizers.
adrianN 6y ago
You would need to fell and bury more trees than we dig up coal. That is quite difficult.
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  That's true, but you don't need to bury the whole tree. You can fell the tree, gassify it, and get a steady stream of fuel and pure carbon. The process is exothermic and produces enough energy to be self sustaining and produce excess fuel. Bury the carbon and use the gas to produce energy and you have a forest that is a net reducer of carbon and a net positive energy producer.
snicker7 6y ago
Bamboo can sequester considerably more carbon per acre-year.
batushka3 6y ago
Planting trees you won't create faux sector for CC, fueled by taxes and subsidies, where business could strive.
sergeykish 6y ago
> It takes about 1,025 trees to offset the average American's emissions [1] That's half of dry land area: earth population * 1 hectare / person / sum earth continent area 0.516 (2019 estimate) [2] that's fertile half: world arable land ≈ 0.46 × land area on the earth ( 1.4912×10^8 km^2 ) [3] Insufficient. [1] https://savingnature.com/offset-your-carbon-footprint-carbon-calculator/ https://savingnature.com/offset-your-carbon-footprint-carbon... [2] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=earth+population+*+1+hectare+%2F+person+%2F+sum+earth+continent+area https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=earth+population+*+1+h... [3] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=world+arable+land https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=world+arable+land
- Traster 6y ago
  I would assume that the average American is emiting way more than the average human, so you can't just multiply it up by earth's population.
  - sergeykish 6y ago
    And forests are different: > Northeast, maple–beech–birch forests > 25 year old forest: 1,760 lbs of CO2 per acre per year > Northeast, white and red pine forests > 25 year old forest: 9,826 lbs of CO2 per acre per year [1] With global CO2 emissions [2]: 35 billion t / (2000 lbs / acre) 1.561×10^8 km^2 (square kilometers) ≈ land area on the earth ( 1.4912×10^8 km^2 ) [3] maple–beech–birch forests would not cut. 35 billion t / (10000 lbs / acre) 3.123×10^7 km^2 (square kilometers) ≈ 0.46 × total area of crop land on Earth (2012 estimate) ( ≈ 2.62×10^7 mi^2 ) [4] pine if used on half of crop land. That's managed forest, no wild forests allowed. [1] http://medcraveonline.com/FREIJ/FREIJ-02-00040.pdf http://medcraveonline.com/FREIJ/FREIJ-02-00040.pdf [2] https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions [3] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=35+billion+t+%2F+%282000+lbs+%2F+acre%29 https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=35+billion+t+%2F+%2820... [4] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=35+billion+t+%2F+%2810000+lbs+%2F+acre%29 https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=35+billion+t+%2F+%2810...
  - mhh__ 6y ago
xyzzyz 6y ago
We don’t have nearly enough land area for that, and even if we did, we’d need to cut and bury these trees underground, if we want the sequestration to be more than temporary. Seems silly to do that while digging up coal at the same time.

AbrahamParangi 6y ago

I did some napkin math at one point and I believe the limiting factor is energy. You need more energy than can be generated using contemporary sources.

marcosdumay 6y ago
You need to burn about 10kg of oil to get enough energy to liquefy a ton of it.

IronRanger 6y ago

There are still countries around the world which subsidise fossil fuels. Not indirect subsidies like exporation writeoffs for corporations, but actual incentives for consumers to consume in the form of below-market pricing. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/value-of-fossil-fuel-subsidies-by-fuel-in-the-top-25-countries-2019 https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/value-of-foss... And even without subsidies, petrol and diesel are undertaxed in almost every country. Properly taxing fossil fuel is surely a more cost-effective preliminary step compared to schemes like CCS.

sudosysgen 6y ago
While this is true, there is a reason why so many poor countries have to subsidize fossil fuels. In those countries, if you are middle class or below, without those subsidies, you might not be able to heat your house, go to work, or fuel your tractor. So unless you want revolts, it's not going to be possible to remove those subsidies unless massive investment at a world-wide scale in nuclear, hydro, and other types of renewables, as well as a serious ramp up of cheap (3000-9000$) EV production, actually makes it possible for the average Joe there to survive without fossil fuel subsidies. There are also other countries that are richer in which this doesn't apply, for which there is no excuse.
- fulafel 6y ago
  Changing those subsidies to income tranfers of money would be cost neutral and strictly better or equal for everyone and save on emissions.
  - ivirshup 6y ago
    The countries that I can think of which subsidize oil also produce it. Plus, it's easier to embezzle money than oil – so better to keep that.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    It wouldn't be. Governments in such poor countries often buy fossil fuels below international market prices as they produce them, and directly giving money is problematic because a lot of people do not have bank accounts, and that fraud and embezzlement is a huge issue. I agree that they should be made progressive and thus reduced immediately and phased out as soon as possible, but it's just not feasible the remove them completely immediately.

watertom 6y ago

Don't forget that the permafrost is thawing and it's starting to release massive amounts of CO2, much more than previously thought. The thawing is releasing massive amounts of Methane, and Nitrous Oxide which are far more impactful than CO2. Due to warming temperatures more ice is melting and it's raising the temperature of the oceans and it's causing them to be more acidic, both of which is bad for phytoplankton populations, which have already declined steeply. Phytoplankton is the basis for the entire marine ecosystem. Like most collapses, a declines happen gradually then suddenly it crashes, my fear is that the phytoplankton population will crash soon, and when it does we're in deep trouble. 20% of the atmosphere's oxygen comes from phytoplankton, more than all the world's rain forests combined. The ocean is responsible for somewhere between 50-80% of the atmosphere's oxygen, there is no telling what happens when the phytoplankton population crashes. We could see a huge drop in oxygen levels in the atmosphere very quickly. 30% of the world's population relies on the oceans for their primary source of protein, and about the same number of people rely on the marine ecosystem for their livelihood, when the phytoplankton population crashes, those people will be in serious, serious trouble. Reducing our carbon output isn't enough, slowing an increase still means we are increasing concentration levels, we need to be removing more than we are releasing, and I don't see any possible way to achieve that with any known technology. I don't think we can stop, or even slow what we've started. The earth is now seeking it's new equilibrium state, it's hard to say if we are part of that equilibrium state.

rayiner 6y ago
The permafrost tipping point theory is not accepted science: https://earther.gizmodo.com/climate-scientists-debunk-point-of-no-return-paper-ev-1845667916 https://earther.gizmodo.com/climate-scientists-debunk-point-... Also, oxygen levels would not drop rapidly. It would take millions of years: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/destructive-amazon-fires-do-not-threaten-earths-oxygen-expert-says/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/destructive-amazo...
- Diederich 6y ago
  Correct, it's not currently widely accepted. In many ways, science is more 'conservative' than so-called 'conservative' political parties, which is probably a good thing. However, there's a lot of emerging that supports the concept that there will be a large amount of methane release from the arctic over the next few decades. Very large. If this happens, and I truly hope it does not, then the impact will be enormous and devastating. While such a release isn't sure, the combination of possibility and impact is more than enough for us to deeply consider it during policy considerations.

GhostVII 6y ago

People will buy sequestered carbon if there is a market for it. Some kind of cap-and-trade system for emissions would make it profitable to do carbon capture once cheaper methods of reducing emissions have been exhausted.

cogman10 6y ago

I think research still needs to be poured into carbon sequestration, but I agree with your overall analysis. Carbon sequestration is like ocean desalination. Sure, it can be done, but it's a lot easier and a lot more efficient to start with a non-salty body of water. Stopping carbon emissions is a lot more important in the short term. Long term, I can see carbon capture being used as an alternative to push for a carbon neutral or negative economy. We'll likely need captured carbon for shipping, airplane travel, and plastics. A positive of carbon capture is that you can pretty much set it up anywhere. You may be able to setup a capture facility at major fuel hubs to cut down on transport costs.

baq 6y ago

> Also, who’s going to buy sequestered carbon? the free market doesn't apply here, because the climate doesn't have buying power, nor does it care. it's a political decision on a world level.

mhh__ 6y ago
The free market doesn't apply in that sense, but it is clearly the way forward in the sense that Carbon Taxation/Pricing and other schemes are clearly going to be more effectively than government intervention.
- baq 6y ago
  oh i think we are in agreement - carbon tax and/or carbon dividends are political decisions, after all. the market will adapt to regulations, hopefully with benefit for the climate. it's just not easy to get there, apparently politicians are too afraid and/or have too much money from kickbacks from fossil industry.
DesiLurker 6y ago
>climate doesn't have buying power though I agree with the conclusion thats a bad argument, people do have buying power and they do care IF theymake the connection. that said even if it does not makes financial sense we should still do it because 1) survival of biosphere should trump survival of economic system. 2) people are ignoring the potential to create new market here and the possibility of creating an entirely new industry is quite enticing.
- baq 6y ago
  our climate situation fits pretty much perfectly to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons. given that, i see no way forward other than a coordinated policy change world-wide (otherwise everybody who can count money will move their polluting assets to places which don't accept the policy). the one way we could sort of proceed is to make being climate-friendly have financial sense. this is the job of taxes and incentives, i.e. regulations. people with money hate changing regulations that got them money and they have money to prevent changing these regulations. countries without money look at countries with money and ask why they have to suffer if those guys could pollute how much they wanted and got rich in the process. the challenge to get a compromise here is unprecedented and the clock is merciless.

kiliantics 6y ago

Sounds like a good scheme for global redistribution of wealth. Get the richest countries to put an annual trillion dollar budget together for buying carbon, divided up by country based on their GDP. Obviously, no one with the power to do so will really want that redistribution to happen though.

snarf21 6y ago

Humans are selfish and just don't care. Once mother nature kills off most of our population, carbon will slow sequester itself and the earth will heal but it will take centuries. The earth just can't sustain food and energy for 8B people. My guess it is more like 2B max.

otikik 6y ago
> can't sustain food and energy for 8B people It totally can. What it can't sustain is 8B people not working together.
- snarf21 6y ago
  That is exactly my point. Humans are selfish. We have a history of destruction even at our own expense. I wish it were otherwise but wishing it doesn't make it so. I was merely saying at 2B the earth is okay despite us not caring or working together.
anonuser123456 6y ago
I would wager the earth can sustain 100 billion people and will eventually do so with technology.
- snarf21 6y ago
  Could you expound? Is this something you think possible in 20 years? 50? 1000?
  - anonuser123456 6y ago
    Sure. 1. Robotics will make the world rich enough. 2. Synthetic food (bioreactors) will make it cheap enough. 3. DT fusion + solar will power it. The technology part is less than 100 years away at scale. Probably less.

wing-_-nuts 6y ago

So, in eons past, carbon was sequestered naturally via calcium carbonate (CaCO3) if I'm following your math we'd need 4B tons of Ca / yr to sequester that yes? Of course, that's vastly more than we produce a year, but it is the 5th most abundant element. Could we scale up CaCO3 production to sequester carbon?

ip26 6y ago
My mind wanders to farming calcifying zooplankton. I wonder how hard it is to remove them from the carbon cycle.
- wing-_-nuts 6y ago
  You also have to consider that as the oceans absorb more co2, they become more acidic, making it harder for plankton to form shells and sequester carbon.
jackdeansmith 6y ago
The term you're looking for is "enhanced weathering"

jartelt 6y ago

And... spinning up that trillion dollar market would likely be worth every penny if it prevents continued warming, prevents further significant sea level rise, prevents migration crises due to flooding/droughts/etc, and prevents further ocean acidification.

bit_logic 6y ago

What you described can be the path to fast action on climate change. Only a few more steps are required: * Cover every rooftop, every parking lot, every desert with solar panels as much as we can. Cover every windy plain with wind turbines. Take all the excess power and instead of building expensive batteries, use it to power this CO2 -> synthetic liquid fuel process. * Carbon tax on any "fossil" fuel sources (anything from the ground). Make it expensive so the synthetic fuel is competitive. There's other ways too (like requiring X% mix of carbon neutral synthetic fuel, just like they do now with ethanol). Slowly increase the percent over time. * All the old infrastructure (existing cars, gas power plants, ships, trains, buses, airplanes, etc.) becomes more and more carbon neutral as the fuel becomes more synthetic. Even with the most optimistic EV car adoption projections, there will still be millions of gas cars out there. Other old carbon fuel based infrastructure (such as power plants) are hard to replace because solar/wind are not steady sources of power. This path addressees the weaknesses of solar/wind (how to store excess energy) and how to quickly transition existing infrastructure to carbon neutral.

anthropodie 6y ago
> cover every rooftop .. What about the carbon we add doing this? I mean manufacturing, transport and all such indirect sources of carbon.
- CyanBird 6y ago
  > What about the carbon we add doing this? That's why OP is talking of decarbonificating the oil production itself, so as things start to decarbinify they will continue accelerating on that road as other processes become more decarbonized The entire aluminum production on Iceland for example is already decarbonized
- bit_logic 6y ago
  Everything currently requires fossil fuel sourced energy to create it. So the question is, over the expected lifespan of the object, will it create more energy than was required to produce it? Solar panels expected lifespan is about 30 years. Installation, transport, etc. are all a fixed initial carbon cost. Studies and analysis have already been done (google search for studies from NREL) and the initial carbon cost payback is about 3-4 years of a typical 30 year solar panel lifespan. So 27 years of effectively carbon negative power generation. But also consider the downstream effects. Once you have a carbon negative power source like solar in place, the carbon cost to create other things drops as well (since they use less and less power from fossil fuel sourced power).

m463 6y ago

A better rule of thumb is 1 gallon of gasoline is ~20 lbs of C02. That puts things on a more personal level. Another one is 1 lb of C02 per kwh of electricity. That one is subject to obfuscation or confusion because it is dependent on the source of electricity.