3 ms·
I'm 100% in favour of carbon removal through whatever sustainable means by which we can achieve it, but if we succeed, and carbon levels start to fall, I've got
by doctor_eval 5y ago
I'm 100% in favour of carbon removal through whatever sustainable means by which we can achieve it, but if we succeed, and carbon levels start to fall, I've got this nagging concern.
What happens in (say) 200 years, when our entire industrial base might be dependent on products created from atmospheric CO2? Is it possible that there won't be enough CO2 left for plants to grow? (I know there would be other very serious consequences as well, if atmospheric CO2 gets too low)
If there ends up being money in CO2 removal then how do we ensure CO2 levels remain in the habitable range, and that we don't just keep removing CO2 because doing so is valuable?
There appears to be a fundamental economic driver for climate change, which we are probably going to address using the very same economic driver that got us here in the first place.
(Admittedly, worrying about the world in 200 years seems a bit of a stretch at this moment in time).
- imtringued 5y agoThe carbon doesn't disappear. If you can go from CO2 to C then you can recycle it.
- friedturkey 5y agoI think, generally, making CO2 is pretty easy. There are billions of things that make it as a byproduct and that's why we have a problem with runaway CO2. Things that consume CO2 are less common. But that is a good thing to think about. We don't know what industry will be like 200 years from now. I guess boring deep into the earth for methane and other gases to burn would be one way. No matter what happens, resources on this earth are limited, though.
- stkdump 5y agoI hope that in 200 years we are well past the notion that government can't regulate these kinds of things. If not, we might not even be around that long as a civilization.