6 ms·

What’s dangerous is attacking any idea that attempts to manage climate risks in light of humanity’s continuing use of carbon fuels. The anthropocene is as it i

What’s dangerous is attacking any idea that attempts to manage climate risks in light of humanity’s continuing use of carbon fuels. The anthropocene is as it is, not as it should be. Emissions reduction, carbon removal, and solar radiation management are all important tools in managing the world we’ve made. The sooner our cultural narrative expands to accept consequential responsibility, the better. (Article is better than the headline)

bko 5y ago
I don't understand the opposition of carbon capture. Carbon in the environment seems like a technical problem with a technical solution. What's the alternative? Try to convince every nation in the world to make their citizens poorer by forcing them to adopt more expensive energy sources and eventually forcibly limit population growth? Even the most lofty treaties and proposals admit to not being enough, so why do we persist with chasing ever more draconian controls over what people can do?
- rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
  >Carbon in the environment seems like a technical problem Is it? The problem isn't that there's carbon in the atmosphere but we keeping adding more even though it's making it inhabitable. Is too much alcohol in my blood a technical problem or a drinking problem. Someone drunk should stop drinking alcohol in the first place (admit that's a behavior of behavior) instead of finding ways to remove alcohol from their system.
  - chii 5y ago
    > Someone drunk should stop drinking alcohol in the first place but if removing alcohol is possible (and cheap), and the person _wants_ to be drunk, then they should be allowed to do so. Rather than saying that one should reduce their alcohol intake.
    - rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
      >removing alcohol is possible (and cheap) Just like carbon removal, removing alcohol from blood is much more difficult (and/or expensive) than to stop drinking. It's an addiction so maybe we should stop selling alcohol to drunk people who can't help but put their life at risk. If your drunk friends says "but I'll find a way to get sober", we can agree to help them with that once they stop drinking. Also, wrt to climate change: people won't want carbon but energy and we have an alternative to fossil fuels so replace them with renewable sources as much as possible and once we've done our best, finally talk about all the CO2 we failed to save. It's all about priorities because of the time carbon remains in the atmosphere and the feedback loops at play.
      - bko 5y ago
        > Just like carbon removal, removing alcohol from blood is much more difficult (and/or expensive) than to stop drinking How do you figure? I can't foresee a world in which a human being's life is carbon neutral. So if we have an exponentially growing global population, how does carbon reduction not eventually lead to population control?
        rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
        >So if we have an exponentially growing global population We don't https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth#/media/File:World_population_(UN).svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow...
        corty 5y ago
        That are projections with a very unclear reasoning. It is thought that most of the world will follow Europe in population decline, but even North America isn't there yet. And if the reason is something temporary, like current western culture, then it will vanish at some point, leading to more exponential growth again.
        5y ago
  - blooalien 5y ago
    Part of the problem there is that if removing alcohol from their system were cheap and easy, they'd probably do it, even if it was still damaging their body, and that'd be their choice for their body. The big difference is that climate change doesn't just harm the persons causing it, it harms literally everyone on the planet and a lotta those folks have zero say in it.
- spaetzleesser 5y ago
  To me carbon removal is just a PR tool by interested parties who don’t want to reduce emissions. I haven’t seen any approach that even remotely can be scaled to a level where it would make a difference. I think it’s a distraction that’s designed to prevent meaningful action. Pretty much the same as the fast food industry sponsoring health education initiatives that tell people junk food is ok.
  - corty 5y ago
    To me, critics of carbon removal are engaging in their own agenda as well. Usually they advocate for the abolishment of individual transport, deindustrialisation and lower standards of living. Since those will only be had if there was no alternative, every technique that lets us have our current standard of living is criticized out of hand as non-viable. Only abstinence and discipline for us CO₂-sinners!
  - unchocked 5y ago
    A similar argument could have been made for solar power in the 1980s - just a PR tool distracting from the only economically viable energy choices of nuclear or oil. But we have cheap and viable solar energy today because of decades of work to make it economically viable. So tarring carbon removal or any other technology that could feasibly improve or stabilize a damaged climate could be strangling future pillars of climate response.
    - spaetzleesser 5y ago
      I am not against research. Research as much as possible. Maybe something will show up. But it should not be viewed as a short term alternative to cutting emissions. I am just worried that some industries are using carbon capture as a delay tactic. Reminds me a little if “clean coal” they pushed some years ago.
- hebrox 5y ago
  For me the problem is that if you focus only on one part of the entire problem, you will never fix it. You can do carbon capturing at a NG plant, but what about all the leaks [1]? Lowering CO2 emissions, will lower all kinds of emissions, so that should be the focus. [1]: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.0c00437 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.0c00437
- pjc50 5y ago
  Can carbon capture ever be cheaper than not emitting the carbon in the first place? That's the critical question. Also, if the companies and countries profiting from carbon extraction from the ground aren't the ones paying for it to be extracted from the atmosphere, you've got a massive transfer of wealth happening there. Should the US be paying for the Saudi royal family to get richer?
  - corty 5y ago
    Most nations won't bother lowering their emissions. So the question is not whether CCS is cheaper than not emitting, the question is whether CCS is cheaper than taking action to force the issue. Which would include abandoning several international treaties like the WTO, air traffic agreements, maybe impose sanctions and even go to war. If climate change is a sufficiently important issue, then hell yes, the US should be paying for CCS, even if that means that the Saudi royal family can afford a few more solid-gold-airplanes. If the issue isn't that important, than why bother at all?
    - rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
      >Most nations won't bother lowering their emissions. Why? We can switch to EV (this cuts emissions by 6 https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/transport/vehicles/docs/2020_study_main_report_en.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/transport/vehic...) and to renewables (another factor for EV, but also households and the whole industrial sector). We can also significantly reduce meat consumption (the easiest and least expensive change). Personally, I've halves my emissions in 2 years (no flights, no car, vegetarianism, etc) so I don't understand the fatalism. Sure some may reject changes but it's much easier to do than many expect. If one can/will change, others can/will to.
      - corty 5y ago
        Because EVs are quite expensive and need lots of infrastructure. We basically have to double our electricity production when we are still struggling to just get the current load without EVs on renewables. We need to upgrade our power grid with more carrying capacity and more storage, which is neither cheap nor easy. And even then, that just solves cars, not transport of goods. There is a whole load of additional problems to solve there, like hydrogen production and distribution or synfuels. This "just use EVs" alone is not viable for anything but the industrialised countries, and even there most are struggling with the cost and public support. Here in Germany, nobody wants any more windmills or power lines, yet we are only at less than one quarter of what we need overall. Meanwhile electricity is already extremely expensive over here. Reducing meat consumption is only easy if you don't like meat or like to castigate yourself. I personally would rather see Miami sink into the ocean than not eat as much meat anymore. And I know a majority of the population thinks this way. Now take the above and tell that to the inhabitants of an up-and-coming nation like China, Brazil, Nigeria or South Africa. They'll just laugh at you I guess. They want their piece of the cake, too.
- adrianN 5y ago
  Renewables are not more expensive. They are a lot cheaper if you account for the externalities. A carbon price, with border adjustments for im- and exports would be an effective way to let the invisible hand convince every nation to become net neutral.
  - Unklejoe 5y ago
    > account for the externalities. I feel like that goes against human nature though. Instant gratification > all.
    - voakbasda 5y ago
      That will be one of the changes. Humans do not require instant gratification. It’s a luxury. We will be forced to give it up when it becomes unaffordable.
  - jasonlaramburu 5y ago
    > They are a lot cheaper if you account for the externalities. You also need to account for grid scale energy storage to deploy renewables at any meaningful capacity. Unfortunately we still don’t have a cost-effective solution that works at grid scale. Batteries don’t last long enough.
    - adrianN 5y ago
      Power2Gas works at grid scale, but I agree that it's cost should come down a bit more. Right now it's cheaper to shape the demand side in most countries than to invest into storage. However, I am also taking into account about 200€/ton CO2.
      - jasonlaramburu 5y ago
        >Power2Gas works at grid scale You also have to consider round trip efficiency. Anything less than 75% is probably a non-starter. Lithium Ion approaches 93% but still has a very high cost of ownership.
- AtlasBarfed 5y ago
  When it comes to the fossil fuel companies, my objection to their carbon capture is manifold. Clean coal has always been a sham, so I don't have faith in their schemes for scrubbing carbon. These companies have shown no real appetite for actually fixing the problems they created, and a near infinite appetite for juking the stats. As an example, they always block any semi-reasonable economic systems for carbon taxation and pricing externalities which would be extremely effective at fixing the problem from a consumer demand perspective and pricing in mitigations for petroleum use. Their sequestration seems largely about pumping CO2 into the ground. I'm not a geologist, and I can't speak to how effective that is at keeping gas from leaking back to the surface, but stories about fracking ruining the water in large areas due to _gasses_ coming up from the ground don't give me faith. Maybe the strategy is to shove enough CO2 around mineral strata like olivine that eventually absorb it but the entire process sounds like it is rife for abuse: oil company SAYS it shoved it down there, SAYS it will stay there, just to get whatever capture credit. Do they actually care if their carbon gets in the air? Historically the answer is absolutely not. And the article is right, bad science reporting in the press will misrepresent the problems and solutions, like they have for, oh, since the press has ever existed for science in general and 70 years specifically for oil/gas/global warming/the environment. Nations DON'T have to be poorer. Alternative energy is cheaper than coal, and last I checked was on even par with natural gas turbine, and soon new alternative energy will be cheaper than already-installed gas plants, an important milestone that means the electric companies will actively try to shutter since replacing them saves them money. The BEV will drop under ICE drivetrain cost very very soon. It probably has already, but the design cycle of cars using those technologies is probably on a 2-5 year delay from showing up in the marketplace. So the third world's transportation and energy infrastructure will be largely decarbonized. I think that's about 50-60% of emissions in the emissions pile. Your argument seems to boil down to "make solving the problem by means other than carbon capture seem impossible or repressive". I disagree.
- shmel 5y ago
  It is a good tech to have, however most people see it as an easy way out "oh, we'll just scale up carbon capture and I don't have to give up my car and AC". I am highly skeptical that any remotely complicated technology can be scaled enough to counteract massive amounts of fossil fuel burned daily. We burn millions of barrels of oil every day. If you want to solve it via carbon capture, you need to extract it on a similar scale. Have you every heard anyone complaining that they extract so much carbon, they need space to store it? No. That is because we extract miniscule amounts compared to fossil fuels we burn.
- rasz 5y ago
  How did recycling plastics work out?
rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
Any investment in carbon removal could be invested instead in ways that prevent carbon emissions in the first place (renewable, EV...). All the CO2 emitted today (even if removed later) will increasingly contribute to climate change due to the many and enormous positive feedback loops[0] at play (esp. thawing permafrost). Why not save as much CO2 as possible now and, when we can't do more (e.g long-term shortage of batteries), fully invest in carbon removal programs? [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Positive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Positi...
- kisamoto 5y ago
  I agree but also these things take time and removal and reductions are not mutually exclusive. Personally I think that development of both in parallel is what can bring the most success. We covert to an emissionless society in the future and use carbon removal as the net-zero emissions bridge during the transition phase.
  - rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
    >Removal and reductions are not mutually exclusive. Economically, they are. Carbon removal technologies do not prevent the emissions of CO2 (their production actually emits CO2), but reducing emissions cancels the need to remove emissions future emissions. Budgets are limited so any investment in future carbon removal is not used to stop today's emission. Also, climate change isn't the only catastrophe we must avoid (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_collapse) so our efforts and resources are definitely limited.
    - bumby 5y ago
      >their production actually emits CO2 To be fair, so does the production of renewables. I think the bigger reason is that CO2 sequestration is more compatible with human psychology. It reminds me of a study that looks at three ways to convince homeowners to conserve energy (sorry, this is from memory, I can't remember the actual study): Method 1: educate them about how much money they will save. -Result: Little to no effect on consumption Method 2: educate them about how much better it is for the environment -Result: Little to no effect on consumption Method 3: inform them that a majority of their neighbors are conserving energy -Result: A significant reduction in consumption Now that doesn't seem particularly rational to me, until you frame it as most people are simultaneously selfish and also social creatures. But that framework helps understand why carbon removal gets more coverage than conservation.
ArkanExplorer 5y ago
Have a look at the chemical composition of crude oil: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#Composition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#Composition Its already 83% carbon by weight, and already in the ground, and already liquid. Its impossible to do any better than that! CO2 is only 27% carbon by weight.

bko 5y ago

I don't understand the opposition of carbon capture. Carbon in the environment seems like a technical problem with a technical solution. What's the alternative? Try to convince every nation in the world to make their citizens poorer by forcing them to adopt more expensive energy sources and eventually forcibly limit population growth? Even the most lofty treaties and proposals admit to not being enough, so why do we persist with chasing ever more draconian controls over what people can do?

rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
>Carbon in the environment seems like a technical problem Is it? The problem isn't that there's carbon in the atmosphere but we keeping adding more even though it's making it inhabitable. Is too much alcohol in my blood a technical problem or a drinking problem. Someone drunk should stop drinking alcohol in the first place (admit that's a behavior of behavior) instead of finding ways to remove alcohol from their system.
- chii 5y ago
  > Someone drunk should stop drinking alcohol in the first place but if removing alcohol is possible (and cheap), and the person _wants_ to be drunk, then they should be allowed to do so. Rather than saying that one should reduce their alcohol intake.
  - rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
    >removing alcohol is possible (and cheap) Just like carbon removal, removing alcohol from blood is much more difficult (and/or expensive) than to stop drinking. It's an addiction so maybe we should stop selling alcohol to drunk people who can't help but put their life at risk. If your drunk friends says "but I'll find a way to get sober", we can agree to help them with that once they stop drinking. Also, wrt to climate change: people won't want carbon but energy and we have an alternative to fossil fuels so replace them with renewable sources as much as possible and once we've done our best, finally talk about all the CO2 we failed to save. It's all about priorities because of the time carbon remains in the atmosphere and the feedback loops at play.
    - bko 5y ago
      > Just like carbon removal, removing alcohol from blood is much more difficult (and/or expensive) than to stop drinking How do you figure? I can't foresee a world in which a human being's life is carbon neutral. So if we have an exponentially growing global population, how does carbon reduction not eventually lead to population control?
      - rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
        >So if we have an exponentially growing global population We don't https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth#/media/File:World_population_(UN).svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow...
        corty 5y ago
        That are projections with a very unclear reasoning. It is thought that most of the world will follow Europe in population decline, but even North America isn't there yet. And if the reason is something temporary, like current western culture, then it will vanish at some point, leading to more exponential growth again.
        5y ago
- blooalien 5y ago
  Part of the problem there is that if removing alcohol from their system were cheap and easy, they'd probably do it, even if it was still damaging their body, and that'd be their choice for their body. The big difference is that climate change doesn't just harm the persons causing it, it harms literally everyone on the planet and a lotta those folks have zero say in it.
spaetzleesser 5y ago
To me carbon removal is just a PR tool by interested parties who don’t want to reduce emissions. I haven’t seen any approach that even remotely can be scaled to a level where it would make a difference. I think it’s a distraction that’s designed to prevent meaningful action. Pretty much the same as the fast food industry sponsoring health education initiatives that tell people junk food is ok.
- corty 5y ago
  To me, critics of carbon removal are engaging in their own agenda as well. Usually they advocate for the abolishment of individual transport, deindustrialisation and lower standards of living. Since those will only be had if there was no alternative, every technique that lets us have our current standard of living is criticized out of hand as non-viable. Only abstinence and discipline for us CO₂-sinners!
- unchocked 5y ago
  A similar argument could have been made for solar power in the 1980s - just a PR tool distracting from the only economically viable energy choices of nuclear or oil. But we have cheap and viable solar energy today because of decades of work to make it economically viable. So tarring carbon removal or any other technology that could feasibly improve or stabilize a damaged climate could be strangling future pillars of climate response.
  - spaetzleesser 5y ago
    I am not against research. Research as much as possible. Maybe something will show up. But it should not be viewed as a short term alternative to cutting emissions. I am just worried that some industries are using carbon capture as a delay tactic. Reminds me a little if “clean coal” they pushed some years ago.
hebrox 5y ago
For me the problem is that if you focus only on one part of the entire problem, you will never fix it. You can do carbon capturing at a NG plant, but what about all the leaks [1]? Lowering CO2 emissions, will lower all kinds of emissions, so that should be the focus. [1]: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.0c00437 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.0c00437
pjc50 5y ago
Can carbon capture ever be cheaper than not emitting the carbon in the first place? That's the critical question. Also, if the companies and countries profiting from carbon extraction from the ground aren't the ones paying for it to be extracted from the atmosphere, you've got a massive transfer of wealth happening there. Should the US be paying for the Saudi royal family to get richer?
- corty 5y ago
  Most nations won't bother lowering their emissions. So the question is not whether CCS is cheaper than not emitting, the question is whether CCS is cheaper than taking action to force the issue. Which would include abandoning several international treaties like the WTO, air traffic agreements, maybe impose sanctions and even go to war. If climate change is a sufficiently important issue, then hell yes, the US should be paying for CCS, even if that means that the Saudi royal family can afford a few more solid-gold-airplanes. If the issue isn't that important, than why bother at all?
  - rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
    >Most nations won't bother lowering their emissions. Why? We can switch to EV (this cuts emissions by 6 https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/transport/vehicles/docs/2020_study_main_report_en.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/transport/vehic...) and to renewables (another factor for EV, but also households and the whole industrial sector). We can also significantly reduce meat consumption (the easiest and least expensive change). Personally, I've halves my emissions in 2 years (no flights, no car, vegetarianism, etc) so I don't understand the fatalism. Sure some may reject changes but it's much easier to do than many expect. If one can/will change, others can/will to.
    - corty 5y ago
      Because EVs are quite expensive and need lots of infrastructure. We basically have to double our electricity production when we are still struggling to just get the current load without EVs on renewables. We need to upgrade our power grid with more carrying capacity and more storage, which is neither cheap nor easy. And even then, that just solves cars, not transport of goods. There is a whole load of additional problems to solve there, like hydrogen production and distribution or synfuels. This "just use EVs" alone is not viable for anything but the industrialised countries, and even there most are struggling with the cost and public support. Here in Germany, nobody wants any more windmills or power lines, yet we are only at less than one quarter of what we need overall. Meanwhile electricity is already extremely expensive over here. Reducing meat consumption is only easy if you don't like meat or like to castigate yourself. I personally would rather see Miami sink into the ocean than not eat as much meat anymore. And I know a majority of the population thinks this way. Now take the above and tell that to the inhabitants of an up-and-coming nation like China, Brazil, Nigeria or South Africa. They'll just laugh at you I guess. They want their piece of the cake, too.
adrianN 5y ago
Renewables are not more expensive. They are a lot cheaper if you account for the externalities. A carbon price, with border adjustments for im- and exports would be an effective way to let the invisible hand convince every nation to become net neutral.
- Unklejoe 5y ago
  > account for the externalities. I feel like that goes against human nature though. Instant gratification > all.
  - voakbasda 5y ago
    That will be one of the changes. Humans do not require instant gratification. It’s a luxury. We will be forced to give it up when it becomes unaffordable.
- jasonlaramburu 5y ago
  > They are a lot cheaper if you account for the externalities. You also need to account for grid scale energy storage to deploy renewables at any meaningful capacity. Unfortunately we still don’t have a cost-effective solution that works at grid scale. Batteries don’t last long enough.
  - adrianN 5y ago
    Power2Gas works at grid scale, but I agree that it's cost should come down a bit more. Right now it's cheaper to shape the demand side in most countries than to invest into storage. However, I am also taking into account about 200€/ton CO2.
    - jasonlaramburu 5y ago
      >Power2Gas works at grid scale You also have to consider round trip efficiency. Anything less than 75% is probably a non-starter. Lithium Ion approaches 93% but still has a very high cost of ownership.
AtlasBarfed 5y ago
When it comes to the fossil fuel companies, my objection to their carbon capture is manifold. Clean coal has always been a sham, so I don't have faith in their schemes for scrubbing carbon. These companies have shown no real appetite for actually fixing the problems they created, and a near infinite appetite for juking the stats. As an example, they always block any semi-reasonable economic systems for carbon taxation and pricing externalities which would be extremely effective at fixing the problem from a consumer demand perspective and pricing in mitigations for petroleum use. Their sequestration seems largely about pumping CO2 into the ground. I'm not a geologist, and I can't speak to how effective that is at keeping gas from leaking back to the surface, but stories about fracking ruining the water in large areas due to _gasses_ coming up from the ground don't give me faith. Maybe the strategy is to shove enough CO2 around mineral strata like olivine that eventually absorb it but the entire process sounds like it is rife for abuse: oil company SAYS it shoved it down there, SAYS it will stay there, just to get whatever capture credit. Do they actually care if their carbon gets in the air? Historically the answer is absolutely not. And the article is right, bad science reporting in the press will misrepresent the problems and solutions, like they have for, oh, since the press has ever existed for science in general and 70 years specifically for oil/gas/global warming/the environment. Nations DON'T have to be poorer. Alternative energy is cheaper than coal, and last I checked was on even par with natural gas turbine, and soon new alternative energy will be cheaper than already-installed gas plants, an important milestone that means the electric companies will actively try to shutter since replacing them saves them money. The BEV will drop under ICE drivetrain cost very very soon. It probably has already, but the design cycle of cars using those technologies is probably on a 2-5 year delay from showing up in the marketplace. So the third world's transportation and energy infrastructure will be largely decarbonized. I think that's about 50-60% of emissions in the emissions pile. Your argument seems to boil down to "make solving the problem by means other than carbon capture seem impossible or repressive". I disagree.
shmel 5y ago
It is a good tech to have, however most people see it as an easy way out "oh, we'll just scale up carbon capture and I don't have to give up my car and AC". I am highly skeptical that any remotely complicated technology can be scaled enough to counteract massive amounts of fossil fuel burned daily. We burn millions of barrels of oil every day. If you want to solve it via carbon capture, you need to extract it on a similar scale. Have you every heard anyone complaining that they extract so much carbon, they need space to store it? No. That is because we extract miniscule amounts compared to fossil fuels we burn.
rasz 5y ago
How did recycling plastics work out?

rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago

Any investment in carbon removal could be invested instead in ways that prevent carbon emissions in the first place (renewable, EV...). All the CO2 emitted today (even if removed later) will increasingly contribute to climate change due to the many and enormous positive feedback loops[0] at play (esp. thawing permafrost). Why not save as much CO2 as possible now and, when we can't do more (e.g long-term shortage of batteries), fully invest in carbon removal programs? [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Positive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Positi...

kisamoto 5y ago
I agree but also these things take time and removal and reductions are not mutually exclusive. Personally I think that development of both in parallel is what can bring the most success. We covert to an emissionless society in the future and use carbon removal as the net-zero emissions bridge during the transition phase.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
  >Removal and reductions are not mutually exclusive. Economically, they are. Carbon removal technologies do not prevent the emissions of CO2 (their production actually emits CO2), but reducing emissions cancels the need to remove emissions future emissions. Budgets are limited so any investment in future carbon removal is not used to stop today's emission. Also, climate change isn't the only catastrophe we must avoid (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_collapse) so our efforts and resources are definitely limited.
  - bumby 5y ago
    >their production actually emits CO2 To be fair, so does the production of renewables. I think the bigger reason is that CO2 sequestration is more compatible with human psychology. It reminds me of a study that looks at three ways to convince homeowners to conserve energy (sorry, this is from memory, I can't remember the actual study): Method 1: educate them about how much money they will save. -Result: Little to no effect on consumption Method 2: educate them about how much better it is for the environment -Result: Little to no effect on consumption Method 3: inform them that a majority of their neighbors are conserving energy -Result: A significant reduction in consumption Now that doesn't seem particularly rational to me, until you frame it as most people are simultaneously selfish and also social creatures. But that framework helps understand why carbon removal gets more coverage than conservation.

ArkanExplorer 5y ago

Have a look at the chemical composition of crude oil: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#Composition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#Composition Its already 83% carbon by weight, and already in the ground, and already liquid. Its impossible to do any better than that! CO2 is only 27% carbon by weight.