4 ms·

The article doesn't go into specifics as to the cost of removing carbon. I imagine those costs will drop as technology approves, but the model may assume that.

by bko 5y ago

The article doesn't go into specifics as to the cost of removing carbon. I imagine those costs will drop as technology approves, but the model may assume that. There's also a cost of reduction that's not factored into most model, the cost of coordination. A model can just say "suppose every country restricts their carbon emissions to X%" but that would require a lot of coordination and implications on state sovereignty that aren't factored in. There's also the enforcement and game theory aspects that would have to be addressed. > “Betting on being able to bring temperatures down after a larger overshoot is very risky because of the uncertain technological feasibility and because of the possibility of setting off irreversible processes in the earth system with even a temporary temperature overshoot,” wrote second author Christoph Bertram, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, in an email to Ars Technica. “Furthermore, such an approach would be unfair to future generations, as it basically would shift more of the mitigation burden on them.” Future generations are likely to be much wealthier than ours. Imagine your great grandparents saving their pennies to buy a nice set of doilys to pass down to you?

rich_sasha 5y ago
There is also an implicit assumption that we will have more abundant green energy - renewables, born again nuclear, fusion etc. The "cost" is largely driven by cost of non-fossil-fuel energy.
pydry 5y ago
>The article doesn't go into specifics as to the cost of removing carbon. I imagine those costs will drop as technology approves I'm skeptical any tech would go below the price of simply planting trees or growing algae.
- Jeff_Brown 5y ago
  Hard to imagine cheaper than planting trees -- but turning atmospheric carbon into rock takes it out of circulation permanently, and with effectively no space constraint.
  - bodhiandphysics 5y ago
    Planting trees is more expensive than you think! You have to buy the land, maintain it, actually physically plant the trees ( which is rather labor intensive). Plants are a relatively low density place to store carbon ( compared to say carbonate rock). It’s not at all clear that planting trees is a good way to sequester carbon.
  - homo_nullius 5y ago
    It's not enough to plant trees. Fallen trees rot and release CO2 back in the atmosphere. You need to cut the trees down, then use lumber for building something, and bury the rest so that it does not decompose.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  Trees and algae don’t (by themselves) permanently sequester atmospheric carbon.
Biologist123 5y ago
“Imagine your great grandparents saving their pennies to buy a nice set of doilys to pass down to you?” I’m not sure this is an appropriate metaphor. Partly because a doily in your example is construed as an asset, whereas adaptation to climate (our bequest to our grandchildren) is a cost. Secondly because apportionment of the costs and benefits will not be equitable. In the west, we benefit disproportionately from burning fossil fuels, but it will be future people in developing states who disproportionately bear the costs. Thirdly, because the costs of climate change might run very high indeed. Look for reviews of Nordstrom’s climate economics to understand some of his appalling modeling assumptions.
- bko 5y ago
  Poor countries have benefited a lot more from industrialization over the last 50 years than wealthy countries. No matter the metric you look at, be it extreme poverty, food security, education, life expectancy etc. https://ourworldindata.org/a-history-of-global-living-conditions-in-5-charts?linkId=62571595 https://ourworldindata.org/a-history-of-global-living-condit...
  - Biologist123 5y ago
    > Poor countries have benefited a lot more from industrialization over the last 50 years than wealthy countries. Wealthy countries had already industrialized. Poor countries were starting from a _very_ low base. They’re still a lot poorer and their contribution to historical emissions is small. Re the metrics you present, I agree against those things are much improved. But I sometimes wonder whether those metrics are very western centric, chosen by technocrats to make themselves look good. In the context of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, I suspect people in many of these places are in a worse position than they were pre-colonialism. Particularly in terms of self-actualization. But on the other levels too. I say this as a former technocrat.
    - bko 5y ago
      If you don't agree with the metric pick another objective metric that could be measured. You would be hard pressed to find a metric in which developing countries have not considerably improved since industrialization.
actually_a_dog 5y ago
Re:coordination, you've hit on the issue that's likely going to sink us. Specifically, China, the current largest polluter, refuses to commit to any reduction before 2030 (in fact, they plan to increase emissions before they decrease them), and refuses to commit to carbon neutrality before 2060. Both of these timelines are way too late. Where's your evidence that future generations are going to be richer than ours, though? We're leaving them with a massive problem to deal with that's going to suck up an increasing amount of wealth over time if we don't do anything about it (which nobody's committed to doing).

by bko 5y ago

rich_sasha 5y ago

There is also an implicit assumption that we will have more abundant green energy - renewables, born again nuclear, fusion etc. The "cost" is largely driven by cost of non-fossil-fuel energy.

pydry 5y ago

>The article doesn't go into specifics as to the cost of removing carbon. I imagine those costs will drop as technology approves I'm skeptical any tech would go below the price of simply planting trees or growing algae.

Jeff_Brown 5y ago
Hard to imagine cheaper than planting trees -- but turning atmospheric carbon into rock takes it out of circulation permanently, and with effectively no space constraint.
- bodhiandphysics 5y ago
  Planting trees is more expensive than you think! You have to buy the land, maintain it, actually physically plant the trees ( which is rather labor intensive). Plants are a relatively low density place to store carbon ( compared to say carbonate rock). It’s not at all clear that planting trees is a good way to sequester carbon.
- homo_nullius 5y ago
  It's not enough to plant trees. Fallen trees rot and release CO2 back in the atmosphere. You need to cut the trees down, then use lumber for building something, and bury the rest so that it does not decompose.
sokoloff 5y ago
Trees and algae don’t (by themselves) permanently sequester atmospheric carbon.

Biologist123 5y ago

“Imagine your great grandparents saving their pennies to buy a nice set of doilys to pass down to you?” I’m not sure this is an appropriate metaphor. Partly because a doily in your example is construed as an asset, whereas adaptation to climate (our bequest to our grandchildren) is a cost. Secondly because apportionment of the costs and benefits will not be equitable. In the west, we benefit disproportionately from burning fossil fuels, but it will be future people in developing states who disproportionately bear the costs. Thirdly, because the costs of climate change might run very high indeed. Look for reviews of Nordstrom’s climate economics to understand some of his appalling modeling assumptions.

bko 5y ago
Poor countries have benefited a lot more from industrialization over the last 50 years than wealthy countries. No matter the metric you look at, be it extreme poverty, food security, education, life expectancy etc. https://ourworldindata.org/a-history-of-global-living-conditions-in-5-charts?linkId=62571595 https://ourworldindata.org/a-history-of-global-living-condit...
- Biologist123 5y ago
  > Poor countries have benefited a lot more from industrialization over the last 50 years than wealthy countries. Wealthy countries had already industrialized. Poor countries were starting from a _very_ low base. They’re still a lot poorer and their contribution to historical emissions is small. Re the metrics you present, I agree against those things are much improved. But I sometimes wonder whether those metrics are very western centric, chosen by technocrats to make themselves look good. In the context of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, I suspect people in many of these places are in a worse position than they were pre-colonialism. Particularly in terms of self-actualization. But on the other levels too. I say this as a former technocrat.
  - bko 5y ago
    If you don't agree with the metric pick another objective metric that could be measured. You would be hard pressed to find a metric in which developing countries have not considerably improved since industrialization.

actually_a_dog 5y ago

Re:coordination, you've hit on the issue that's likely going to sink us. Specifically, China, the current largest polluter, refuses to commit to any reduction before 2030 (in fact, they plan to increase emissions before they decrease them), and refuses to commit to carbon neutrality before 2060. Both of these timelines are way too late. Where's your evidence that future generations are going to be richer than ours, though? We're leaving them with a massive problem to deal with that's going to suck up an increasing amount of wealth over time if we don't do anything about it (which nobody's committed to doing).