4 ms·

No. We have permanent solutions already. We just need the policy to encourage their adoption and implementation. (And further research to advance the existing s

by ahevia 5y ago

No. We have permanent solutions already. We just need the policy to encourage their adoption and implementation. (And further research to advance the existing solutions) CCS (carbon capture & sequestration) is still needed. Even if we stopped emitting GHG today we’ll be above the 1.5 degrees target, but CCS is not a technology that “buys us time” It’s something we use in conjunction with renewable energy resources. CCS isn’t even operating at a large enough scale yet to begin to mitigate or lessen the effects. I don’t mean to harshly criticize. This idea that carbon capture is a time buying technology is often used as a greenwashing narrative to discourage the adoption or solutions we already have.

mkl 5y ago
> We have permanent solutions already. Really? What are you thinking of? Wikipedia makes it all sound pretty speculative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage
- ahevia 5y ago
  I meant permanent solutions in energy. Not carbon capture. Apologies I can see how my comment wasn’t clear
sdenton4 5y ago
Nobody who's serious thinks there's a single silver bullet; we need multiple paths to sequestration, and the other technological solutions aren't scaling up yet. We also need to scale up renewable energy as fast as possible, and get people to stop driving ICE cars. People have to pick where to put their own effort and investments, but no one is saying that these efforts are mutually exclusive. Planting trees is one (very good) bullet among many, which we can do at large scale today. Forests also have excellent effects on local climate and the water cycle, and provides habitat for wildlife and biodiversity. More forests gives us a healthier world.
- ahevia 5y ago
  Yes 100%. This is a really important point. We need to protect and expand natural areas around the world. Forests do use land(that could go to solar energy farms or food farms) and do not sequester as much carbon as CCS. Not that I’m saying “no forests!”. We need them for a lot of other important reasons besides capturing carbon. We could always use policy that discourages wasteful uses of land since we’re definitely not making the best of it in the US at least currently. I believe there were some efforts to turn oil rigs into carbon capture stations? Might have just been an idea I heard at a research conference though. There’s always more ambitious solar geoengineering methods that if(huge if) pans out require no land.

by ahevia 5y ago

mkl 5y ago

> We have permanent solutions already. Really? What are you thinking of? Wikipedia makes it all sound pretty speculative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage

ahevia 5y ago
I meant permanent solutions in energy. Not carbon capture. Apologies I can see how my comment wasn’t clear

sdenton4 5y ago

Nobody who's serious thinks there's a single silver bullet; we need multiple paths to sequestration, and the other technological solutions aren't scaling up yet. We also need to scale up renewable energy as fast as possible, and get people to stop driving ICE cars. People have to pick where to put their own effort and investments, but no one is saying that these efforts are mutually exclusive. Planting trees is one (very good) bullet among many, which we can do at large scale today. Forests also have excellent effects on local climate and the water cycle, and provides habitat for wildlife and biodiversity. More forests gives us a healthier world.

ahevia 5y ago
Yes 100%. This is a really important point. We need to protect and expand natural areas around the world. Forests do use land(that could go to solar energy farms or food farms) and do not sequester as much carbon as CCS. Not that I’m saying “no forests!”. We need them for a lot of other important reasons besides capturing carbon. We could always use policy that discourages wasteful uses of land since we’re definitely not making the best of it in the US at least currently. I believe there were some efforts to turn oil rigs into carbon capture stations? Might have just been an idea I heard at a research conference though. There’s always more ambitious solar geoengineering methods that if(huge if) pans out require no land.