3 ms·

I agree that avoiding emissions in the first place is preferable to trying to figure out how to undo the emissions afterwards. Mental model of emission removal

by shoo 6y ago

I agree that avoiding emissions in the first place is preferable to trying to figure out how to undo the emissions afterwards. Mental model of emission removal scope is some giant world system maybe 1x or 2x the size of the fossil fuel industry, trying to run in reverse what we've spent the last hundred or two years doing. Carbon tax, carbon tax, carbon tax. Something significant like $250 / ton. Cannot come soon enough. Ideally a global carbon tax, failing that just between a few countries & with tariffs or sanctions or so on to penalize trading partners that don't regulate externalities of pollution.

GekkePrutser 6y ago
Exactly that's what I think too. We have to do the removal much faster than we did the actual burning. And the removal will only cost us money, not fuel our economy. I just don't see this happening at significant enough scale. And the capture will have lots of environmental impact too if we do it at that massive scale. And I agree about the carbon tax. It could even pay for some of the removal. The strange thing here now in Europe is that greener alternatives like trains are taxed much higher than dirtier ones like airplanes. Because trains have VAT taxes on them, but the planes fly on kerosene that's exempt from tax and the price kept down due to international agreements. As a result trains aren't a reasonable alternative and won't be for at least the next 20 years or so (as the train network would have to be scaled up significantly which would have been happening already if it was more a better alternative to flying). It's a shame because Europe is a great place for this with lots of short-distance trips.
- saddlerustle 6y ago
  Most european rail is given huge government subsidies too, though. Also flights in the EU already have to pay for emissions as part of the EU emissions trading scheme.
  - pantalaimon 6y ago
    At least in Germany, car subsidies (investments in road infrastructure) are significantly larger than any investments in rail infrastructure.

by shoo 6y ago

GekkePrutser 6y ago

Exactly that's what I think too. We have to do the removal much faster than we did the actual burning. And the removal will only cost us money, not fuel our economy. I just don't see this happening at significant enough scale. And the capture will have lots of environmental impact too if we do it at that massive scale. And I agree about the carbon tax. It could even pay for some of the removal. The strange thing here now in Europe is that greener alternatives like trains are taxed much higher than dirtier ones like airplanes. Because trains have VAT taxes on them, but the planes fly on kerosene that's exempt from tax and the price kept down due to international agreements. As a result trains aren't a reasonable alternative and won't be for at least the next 20 years or so (as the train network would have to be scaled up significantly which would have been happening already if it was more a better alternative to flying). It's a shame because Europe is a great place for this with lots of short-distance trips.

saddlerustle 6y ago
Most european rail is given huge government subsidies too, though. Also flights in the EU already have to pay for emissions as part of the EU emissions trading scheme.
- pantalaimon 6y ago
  At least in Germany, car subsidies (investments in road infrastructure) are significantly larger than any investments in rail infrastructure.