3 ms·

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 toda

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.
naasking 5y ago
> 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? Because carbon removal tech at scale needs to be ready at that point, and it won't be if it doesn't get investment now. I agree it shouldn't get as much attention as displacing carbon sources, but it still needs research investment.

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.

naasking 5y ago

> 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? Because carbon removal tech at scale needs to be ready at that point, and it won't be if it doesn't get investment now. I agree it shouldn't get as much attention as displacing carbon sources, but it still needs research investment.