3 ms·
I am somewhat dismissive, not of the process but of the end outcome itself. Industrial scale carbon capture only makes sense, if we are going sequester it and
by rishav_sharan 5y ago
I am somewhat dismissive, not of the process but of the end outcome itself.
Industrial scale carbon capture only makes sense, if we are going sequester it and remove the carbon from the ecosystem. If we are just going to make fuel/food out of it, it would make no difference to our Climate woes, other than perhaps buy us some time.
I guess, that's still better than what we have, but I can't help think of these as half measures.
- Omnitaus 5y agoThe largest industrial carbon capture facility we have built will mitigate ~3 seconds of global warming in a year. It won't get us anywhere without net zero emissions, even if we assume improvements of multiple orders of magnitude. Even a magic material that perfectly binds to atmospheric CO2 would require rounding up molecules in numbers I don't know the English for. This does open up the possibility of using the 1/3rd of arable land (26% of the terrestrial surface) being tied up growing feed as forests again, though. According to Current Affairs, re-foresting 70% of our terrestrial surface (not possible without drastic food production and consumption changes) would mitigate 1/10th of our global emissions. It's a lot of CO2 we're talking about, your car (if you have one) on average releases a metric ton of the stuff every 2000 miles.
- Omnitaus 5y ago3 seconds of global emissions*