5 ms·

The problem is that even if we do everything you propose - rapidly deploy renewable energy tech, replace natural furnaces with heat pumps after the furnaces bre

The problem is that even if we do everything you propose - rapidly deploy renewable energy tech, replace natural furnaces with heat pumps after the furnaces break, quickly transition to EVs, etc. - the best we can hope for is only 1.5 degrees C warming. Perfect behavior from here on out is not enough to prevent significant warming. There is simply too much carbon in the atmosphere and too many carbon emitting machines in use today that will emit until they reach end of life. They acknowledge this in the IPCC reports and have already baked in aggressive use of carbon capture technology in order to meet the 1.5 C target. Simply put, we need to continue to invest in carbon capture technology. This includes direct air capture, remediating soil to retain more carbon, preventing deforestation, etc. If we do not do this, we are going to blow past the 1.5 degree C mark.

boringg 6y ago
Remediation of soil, preventing deforestation, reforestation are all very important options that need to be pursued. Direct capture to storage is a waste of capital (political, talent and financial) and rewards both the oil and gas historic investments and incentivizes them to continue to pursue fossil fuel production. That with it requiring specific geologic formations and on top there is a risk that there are leaks in the formations (e.g. Aliso Canyon gas leak in California).
- jartelt 6y ago
  Oil and gas companies (and many companies) are going to continue to use fossil fuels regardless of whether or not we invest in direct capture. By your logic, I could say that investing in soil remediation also incentivizes people to keep driving their ICE vehicles... The point is that we are almost certainly going to blow past the 1.5 degree C (and likely 2 degree C) mark if we continue to decarbonize at a slow pace. To avoid this fate, we need to do rapidly electrify everything AND we need to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Direct air capture will never be free, but compared to the cost of future negative climate change impacts the cost of direct air capture could be totally justified. At the very least, it is worth investing in the technology to see if it can become a game changer.
  - boringg 6y ago
    I do think we need to electrify as much as possible but not everything the last 20% is ineffective and quite costly. I get that electrify everything is a great slogan but the reality is that maybe 60-80% makes sense and then after that it because a total cluster. I disagree - and i will continue to say that CCS is a red herring and waste of resources. It has been under development for a considerable amount of time and still has not proven itself. Go look at Alberta's multibillion dollar investments into CCS and how much has not materialized. Deploy technology we already have and invest in viable R&D technology. Renewables, better agriculture, hydrogen based fuels, reforestation, changing cement processes, landfill management, capture biogas from waste water treatment plants and ag facilities, reduce high GWP refrigerant uses in countries that still allow them.... We will blow by 1.5 C if you've been watching this space since the early 2000s we've blown by every single warning that we've put up. Theres a moment in time that is happening right now - we waste our political clout and money on CCS or anything on GeoEngineering and it will be a disappointing future. And no, investing in soil remediation would not incentivize further use of the ICE/fossil fuel burning tech because the oil majors aren't the companies standing to gain from soil remediation (i.e. they haven't spent considerable money funding R&D institutes to evangelize and deploy this tech).
- kisamoto 6y ago
  With the excess CO2 we have in the atmosphere generated by humanties addition to fossil fuels, nature itself cannot act fast enough to save us. Over millenia trees, natural carbon weathering and other processes will stabalize conditions but we cannot wait that long. We have to do everything you said and optimize technologies that convert gaseous CO2 into something that can be permanently stored.
  - boringg 6y ago
    Nature heals faster than we give it credit for, though there is considerable damage being done. Certain species can grow rapidly and remove CO2 from the air. Not saying this isn't a herculean push that requires all efforts - the only efforts I have a difficult time swallowing are CCS and geo-engineering (see other comments for reasoning). I'm all aboard for the others that have been put forward at this point.
CyanBird 6y ago
> the best we can hope for is only 1.5 degrees C warming. OK, and? If you are driving a car and realize you are about to crash which you can't avoid , you still put the breaks on We need to break, we know the crash is going to happen no matter what, but we can reduce it and not get killed/ourselves ejected out of the car

boringg 6y ago

Remediation of soil, preventing deforestation, reforestation are all very important options that need to be pursued. Direct capture to storage is a waste of capital (political, talent and financial) and rewards both the oil and gas historic investments and incentivizes them to continue to pursue fossil fuel production. That with it requiring specific geologic formations and on top there is a risk that there are leaks in the formations (e.g. Aliso Canyon gas leak in California).

jartelt 6y ago
Oil and gas companies (and many companies) are going to continue to use fossil fuels regardless of whether or not we invest in direct capture. By your logic, I could say that investing in soil remediation also incentivizes people to keep driving their ICE vehicles... The point is that we are almost certainly going to blow past the 1.5 degree C (and likely 2 degree C) mark if we continue to decarbonize at a slow pace. To avoid this fate, we need to do rapidly electrify everything AND we need to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Direct air capture will never be free, but compared to the cost of future negative climate change impacts the cost of direct air capture could be totally justified. At the very least, it is worth investing in the technology to see if it can become a game changer.
- boringg 6y ago
  I do think we need to electrify as much as possible but not everything the last 20% is ineffective and quite costly. I get that electrify everything is a great slogan but the reality is that maybe 60-80% makes sense and then after that it because a total cluster. I disagree - and i will continue to say that CCS is a red herring and waste of resources. It has been under development for a considerable amount of time and still has not proven itself. Go look at Alberta's multibillion dollar investments into CCS and how much has not materialized. Deploy technology we already have and invest in viable R&D technology. Renewables, better agriculture, hydrogen based fuels, reforestation, changing cement processes, landfill management, capture biogas from waste water treatment plants and ag facilities, reduce high GWP refrigerant uses in countries that still allow them.... We will blow by 1.5 C if you've been watching this space since the early 2000s we've blown by every single warning that we've put up. Theres a moment in time that is happening right now - we waste our political clout and money on CCS or anything on GeoEngineering and it will be a disappointing future. And no, investing in soil remediation would not incentivize further use of the ICE/fossil fuel burning tech because the oil majors aren't the companies standing to gain from soil remediation (i.e. they haven't spent considerable money funding R&D institutes to evangelize and deploy this tech).
kisamoto 6y ago
With the excess CO2 we have in the atmosphere generated by humanties addition to fossil fuels, nature itself cannot act fast enough to save us. Over millenia trees, natural carbon weathering and other processes will stabalize conditions but we cannot wait that long. We have to do everything you said and optimize technologies that convert gaseous CO2 into something that can be permanently stored.
- boringg 6y ago
  Nature heals faster than we give it credit for, though there is considerable damage being done. Certain species can grow rapidly and remove CO2 from the air. Not saying this isn't a herculean push that requires all efforts - the only efforts I have a difficult time swallowing are CCS and geo-engineering (see other comments for reasoning). I'm all aboard for the others that have been put forward at this point.

CyanBird 6y ago

> the best we can hope for is only 1.5 degrees C warming. OK, and? If you are driving a car and realize you are about to crash which you can't avoid , you still put the breaks on We need to break, we know the crash is going to happen no matter what, but we can reduce it and not get killed/ourselves ejected out of the car