5 ms·

If they can get it down to $100/ton, that's kind of within reach for going carbon neutral, at least for the USA - we emit around 5 billion tons of CO2, so that'

If they can get it down to $100/ton, that's kind of within reach for going carbon neutral, at least for the USA - we emit around 5 billion tons of CO2, so that's $500B/year to offset it all. (but ideally we'd reduce CO2 emissions so the cost to offset it all is lower). Could pay for it with a carbon tax, which would also help reduce CO2 since the heaviest sources of CO2 emission would be paying the most tax. But do we really have a place to pump all of this CO2 laden water?

s1artibartfast 5y ago
The deep ocean is an option. Defer the problem for 10k years
- DoingIsLearning 5y ago
  Isn't that the whole problem of ocean acidification that everyone is intended on avoiding? Sounds like you would just accelerate the problem by moving CO2 from Air to ocean water.
  - goatlover 5y ago
    I think they mean dump containers of sequestered C02 into the deep ocean. The pressure will keep them at the bottom of the ocean.
neltnerb 5y ago
Eh, sort of, but that'll be a whole other research effort. A lot of the maps exist already at least. But I think the way to encourage reducing waste and capturing waste to be in financial competition is that if capture costs $100/ton you charge a $90/ton tax so that your efforts are 90% funded already ($400B of the $500B) if they just paid the tax and changed nothing, while if they dropped their emissions in half they'd save $55/ton relative to a competitor that did nothing. But at least there is still an actual plan for the commons built in. But I like that it sets a benchmark for what carbon pricing needs to be to provide a real incentive to stop emitting it.