6 ms·

This is an important study because most (all?) scenarios used by the IPCC depend heavily on these (as of now) wildly optimistic CO2 removal levels, either with

This is an important study because most (all?) scenarios used by the IPCC depend heavily on these (as of now) wildly optimistic CO2 removal levels, either with BECCS or DACs. In order to hit the "brief and rapidly closing window" we have for effective action, we need to look into lowering material flows and energy use by targeting overconsumption. We simply don't have time to wait for a tech miracle, and – as this study points out – the miracle can have huge downsides.

hannob 5y ago
I have no idea why this comment got downvoted. It points precisely to the point: Many current climate scenarios have already negative emissions "priced in". We absolutely need to have research to better understand what that means, and we should have a plan b if negative emissions at large scales don't work.
- landemva 5y ago
  I didn't downvote though I noticed this, 'We simply don't have time to wait ...'. Whatever the topic, I mentally ignore posts which shill the NEXT WORST THING EVER.
  - _3u10 5y ago
    Exactly, we have lots of time to wait. Humanity survives pretty much no matter what we do. Most of the waiting scenarios involve a drastic decrease in farmland for the US/Europe and larger gains in Canada / Russia. The planet quite frankly doesn’t care if NY / LA / London lose 6 to 12 Ft of land. Even if no one moved and everyone just stayed there to drown, humanity still goes on. The whole thing mostly fixes itself anyway once population peaks in a few decades. It’s not global warming that kills humanity, it’s our population eventually reaching zero through sub replacement birth rates tho maybe there is a saving grace where once incomes get high enough it rebounds.
    - drekk 5y ago
      At what cost does humanity survive? I don't want to become a climate refugee. Even the 1.5C model has millions of climate refugees. People still talk about Miami and Dubai as if they'll be around in a century. I am not so arrogant as to think without humans the planet dies. But maybe unlike most Americans I don't want to sacrifice my grandparents so that people can dine in person at Applebee's, nor do I want to live in a worse, less human-friendly world so that oil executives can make another few decades of profit. We can decarbonize with the technology we have today. We know it will be more expensive economically to wait until it's too late, but it'll be more expensive for taxpayers instead of maybe the companies doing so well they can spend millions on lobbying every year. Farming isn't really the issue, we can eke out 10x the calories by cutting pork/chicken/beef. Wet bulb temperatures (where you can't cool off by sweating and die cooked inside out) are a larger issue. Tons of other cycles that we're fucking with besides carbon, like nitrogen and phosphorus. We're also losing arable land to desertification. I don't even have to get started on our available freshwater reserves. To think humanity will just kinda coast by and that it will all mostly fix itself must be a very nice thought, but it flies in the face of what every single person we pay to study this is saying. And they're not saying humans go extinct.
s1artibartfast 5y ago
Unless CO2 removal is profitable without subsidies, it's pointless and the money should go into Renewables. If you can cut emissions, the CO2 takes care of itself quickly from natural sinks. Per the ipcc model, if we could wave a magic wand and have zero emissions tomorrow, CO2 levels would fall faster than they have been increasing. We already have free CO2 removal. The challenge is and always has been on the emission side. CO2 levels are about 420 ppm and go up about 1.5 per year. A 120 year half life yields -3.5 ppm per year. It is worth investing some money in development for the moonshot possibility of economic viability. Unless it becomes cheaper to capture than build renewables, the the money will always be better spent on green energy.
- gonzo41 5y ago
  The profit / reward is your kids get to live and have kids.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    You are missing the point. I am spelling out how to save your kids lives. As long as there are finite dollars to save the planet, we need to use them wisely.
    - vkou 5y ago
      How can CO2 removal ever be profitable without 'subsidies', like carbon taxes and credits? Anything useful you could make out of CO2 can be made much easier from fossil fuels.
      - s1artibartfast 5y ago
        That's the point. If x dollars can be spent on carbon free Power generation, or carbon capture, you will get more impact from the former. Spend money where it has the most impact on what you care about.
- photochemsyn 5y ago

hannob 5y ago

I have no idea why this comment got downvoted. It points precisely to the point: Many current climate scenarios have already negative emissions "priced in". We absolutely need to have research to better understand what that means, and we should have a plan b if negative emissions at large scales don't work.

landemva 5y ago
I didn't downvote though I noticed this, 'We simply don't have time to wait ...'. Whatever the topic, I mentally ignore posts which shill the NEXT WORST THING EVER.
- _3u10 5y ago
  Exactly, we have lots of time to wait. Humanity survives pretty much no matter what we do. Most of the waiting scenarios involve a drastic decrease in farmland for the US/Europe and larger gains in Canada / Russia. The planet quite frankly doesn’t care if NY / LA / London lose 6 to 12 Ft of land. Even if no one moved and everyone just stayed there to drown, humanity still goes on. The whole thing mostly fixes itself anyway once population peaks in a few decades. It’s not global warming that kills humanity, it’s our population eventually reaching zero through sub replacement birth rates tho maybe there is a saving grace where once incomes get high enough it rebounds.
  - drekk 5y ago
    At what cost does humanity survive? I don't want to become a climate refugee. Even the 1.5C model has millions of climate refugees. People still talk about Miami and Dubai as if they'll be around in a century. I am not so arrogant as to think without humans the planet dies. But maybe unlike most Americans I don't want to sacrifice my grandparents so that people can dine in person at Applebee's, nor do I want to live in a worse, less human-friendly world so that oil executives can make another few decades of profit. We can decarbonize with the technology we have today. We know it will be more expensive economically to wait until it's too late, but it'll be more expensive for taxpayers instead of maybe the companies doing so well they can spend millions on lobbying every year. Farming isn't really the issue, we can eke out 10x the calories by cutting pork/chicken/beef. Wet bulb temperatures (where you can't cool off by sweating and die cooked inside out) are a larger issue. Tons of other cycles that we're fucking with besides carbon, like nitrogen and phosphorus. We're also losing arable land to desertification. I don't even have to get started on our available freshwater reserves. To think humanity will just kinda coast by and that it will all mostly fix itself must be a very nice thought, but it flies in the face of what every single person we pay to study this is saying. And they're not saying humans go extinct.

s1artibartfast 5y ago

Unless CO2 removal is profitable without subsidies, it's pointless and the money should go into Renewables. If you can cut emissions, the CO2 takes care of itself quickly from natural sinks. Per the ipcc model, if we could wave a magic wand and have zero emissions tomorrow, CO2 levels would fall faster than they have been increasing. We already have free CO2 removal. The challenge is and always has been on the emission side. CO2 levels are about 420 ppm and go up about 1.5 per year. A 120 year half life yields -3.5 ppm per year. It is worth investing some money in development for the moonshot possibility of economic viability. Unless it becomes cheaper to capture than build renewables, the the money will always be better spent on green energy.

gonzo41 5y ago
The profit / reward is your kids get to live and have kids.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  You are missing the point. I am spelling out how to save your kids lives. As long as there are finite dollars to save the planet, we need to use them wisely.
  - vkou 5y ago
    How can CO2 removal ever be profitable without 'subsidies', like carbon taxes and credits? Anything useful you could make out of CO2 can be made much easier from fossil fuels.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      That's the point. If x dollars can be spent on carbon free Power generation, or carbon capture, you will get more impact from the former. Spend money where it has the most impact on what you care about.
photochemsyn 5y ago