3 ms·
If the cost of removal is a mere $100 per ton of carbon, the annual cost of removing 30 billion tons of C02 would be $3 Trillion. (3,000,000,000,000) The cost
by boplicity 5y ago
If the cost of removal is a mere $100 per ton of carbon, the annual cost of removing 30 billion tons of C02 would be $3 Trillion. (3,000,000,000,000)
The cost for most of these technologies right now is over $400 per ton, so that works out to $12 trillion.
Yikes.
- dane-pgp 5y agoFor comparison, the Gross World Product is about $90 Trillion, so a global sales tax of about 3% would cover the lower figure. Another way to look at it is that the GWP has an average growth rate of over 3%, so economic growth could continue even if the $3 Trillion spent per year was considered economically unproductive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product
- Edman274 5y agoSo - twice the cost of the war in Afghanistan per year, after financing is calculated?
- alkonaut 5y agoFor comparison, estimates of the yearly costs created by 1.5 degree warming seems to be around 5T/year (e.g. [1]). [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-66275-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-66275-4
- _fizz_buzz_ 5y agoI actually thought that sounds kind of cheap. On average each German person emits roughly 10 tons of carbon per year. So for a $1000 dollars per year, I can be carbon neutral without any additional changes? Sounds pretty good to me.
- missedthecue 5y agoI feel like just letting the climate change over the next 100 years and adapting as needed would be cheaper than spending $1.2 quadrillion on a global geo-engineering project.