3 ms·

This has cost the German government 2.5 billion Euros [1]. That’s $1388 per metric ton of CO2. Current direct air capture technology is estimated to cost betwe

by jupp0r 4y ago

This has cost the German government 2.5 billion Euros [1]. That’s $1388 per metric ton of CO2. Current direct air capture technology is estimated to cost between $132 and $342 per metric ton [2]. If the goal was to reduce carbon emissions, this was a giant waste of money, even compared to the most expensive forms of carbon reduction. [1] https://www.stuttgarter-zeitung.de/inhalt.9-euro-ticket-kosten-bund-mhsd.a971672d-ee90-450d-b2d1-fd6326c7bc13.html https://www.stuttgarter-zeitung.de/inhalt.9-euro-ticket-kost... [2] https://www.iea.org/commentaries/is-carbon-capture-too-expensive https://www.iea.org/commentaries/is-carbon-capture-too-expen... edit: corrected price per ton

detaro 4y ago
> If the goal was to reduce carbon emission It wasn't, but it's a neat side effect.
hnaccount_rng 4y ago
But that really wasn’t the intent. The intent was to lighten the burden of the parts of the society that did not profit from the gas subsidy. What you see here is basically the knock on effect of what essentially-free public transport changes in travel behavior without the time to actually affect vehicle inventory (ie it’s a lower bound) There is also the point of scale, I wouldn’t bet on the capacity for carbon removal on that scale exists today (not that I would be against investing that amount of additional funding for carbon capture technology)
- jupp0r 4y ago
  That’s the cost of today’s direct air capture. When scaled up, these costs will go down due to economics of scale.
codyb 4y ago
But how much money flows into their coffers from increased tourism/isn't spent to bail out businesses with less customers? I think this leaves out that people who can more readily access more of Germany spend more money when they get off the transit systems.
- jupp0r 4y ago
  Climate change doesn't care about increased tourism.
wongarsu 4y ago
It was part of a relieve packet to help people through high fuel prices: make it easier to travel by public transit, along with a reduction in gasoline tax (that cost us 3.15 billion euros). Seeing that one of those two even reduced emissions is a nice bonus. It didn't have to do that at all to be a success. [1] https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2022/kw20-de-energiesteuersenkungsgesetz-894664 https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2022/kw20-de-e...
shafyy 4y ago
Direct air capture hasn't been proven to work at scale. And the key thing we need to do is to reduce emissions, which is done exactly by incentives like this. Was the €9 ticket perfect? No, but it was a good first shot, now we have data and can improve. Furthermore, as others have stated, this was not even the primary goal of this program.
- jupp0r 4y ago
  Your argument is that we should focus on expensive initiatives that don’t reduce carbon emissions as much as alternatives because you like them personally?
  - shafyy 4y ago
    My argument is that we should focus on reducing emissions.
    - jupp0r 4y ago
      That's ineffective. We should focus on reducing carbon in the atmosphere whichever way is most effective given the limited resources we have. Nothing else matters to prevent/reverse global warming.
Ragnarork 4y ago
> That’s $655 per metric ton of CO2. Current direct air capture technology is estimated to cost between $132 and $342 per metric ton Ah yes. Let's totally forget about the actual traveling of passengers that this allowed in the first place.
- jupp0r 4y ago
  Article was about the carbon emission reductions (titled "Germany's €9 transit ticket cuts 1.8 million tonnes of CO2"). Nobody is disputing that more people used public transport when it was almost free. My point was that it's really expensive as a means to reduce carbon emissions. It does have other effects that would be desirable. If it was for me, public transportation would be entirely free for everybody. There is evidence that the cost savings in ticket machine and fare enforcement infrastructure would make this especially appealing due to cost savings.
kevincox 4y ago
Of course this isn't the whole story. - You need to subtract the cost of road maintenance that may have been saved with less cars driving. - You need to add gas tax that wasn't collected. - You need to add the sales tax for trips that people took that they may not have otherwise. - You need to subtract the healthcare costs of reduced pollution and accidents. - Capturing carbon is less efficient that preventing it begin produced in the first place because that ignores the carbon emitted in the production of fuels and materials. Basically the word is incredibly complicated. It is hard to equate this "nearly free" far with direct carbon capture.
- jupp0r 4y ago
  Sure, I don’t think this changes the numbers fundamentally though.

by jupp0r 4y ago

detaro 4y ago

> If the goal was to reduce carbon emission It wasn't, but it's a neat side effect.

hnaccount_rng 4y ago

But that really wasn’t the intent. The intent was to lighten the burden of the parts of the society that did not profit from the gas subsidy. What you see here is basically the knock on effect of what essentially-free public transport changes in travel behavior without the time to actually affect vehicle inventory (ie it’s a lower bound) There is also the point of scale, I wouldn’t bet on the capacity for carbon removal on that scale exists today (not that I would be against investing that amount of additional funding for carbon capture technology)

jupp0r 4y ago
That’s the cost of today’s direct air capture. When scaled up, these costs will go down due to economics of scale.

codyb 4y ago

But how much money flows into their coffers from increased tourism/isn't spent to bail out businesses with less customers? I think this leaves out that people who can more readily access more of Germany spend more money when they get off the transit systems.

jupp0r 4y ago
Climate change doesn't care about increased tourism.

wongarsu 4y ago

It was part of a relieve packet to help people through high fuel prices: make it easier to travel by public transit, along with a reduction in gasoline tax (that cost us 3.15 billion euros). Seeing that one of those two even reduced emissions is a nice bonus. It didn't have to do that at all to be a success. [1] https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2022/kw20-de-energiesteuersenkungsgesetz-894664 https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2022/kw20-de-e...

shafyy 4y ago

Direct air capture hasn't been proven to work at scale. And the key thing we need to do is to reduce emissions, which is done exactly by incentives like this. Was the €9 ticket perfect? No, but it was a good first shot, now we have data and can improve. Furthermore, as others have stated, this was not even the primary goal of this program.

jupp0r 4y ago
Your argument is that we should focus on expensive initiatives that don’t reduce carbon emissions as much as alternatives because you like them personally?
- shafyy 4y ago
  My argument is that we should focus on reducing emissions.
  - jupp0r 4y ago
    That's ineffective. We should focus on reducing carbon in the atmosphere whichever way is most effective given the limited resources we have. Nothing else matters to prevent/reverse global warming.

Ragnarork 4y ago

> That’s $655 per metric ton of CO2. Current direct air capture technology is estimated to cost between $132 and $342 per metric ton Ah yes. Let's totally forget about the actual traveling of passengers that this allowed in the first place.

jupp0r 4y ago
Article was about the carbon emission reductions (titled "Germany's €9 transit ticket cuts 1.8 million tonnes of CO2"). Nobody is disputing that more people used public transport when it was almost free. My point was that it's really expensive as a means to reduce carbon emissions. It does have other effects that would be desirable. If it was for me, public transportation would be entirely free for everybody. There is evidence that the cost savings in ticket machine and fare enforcement infrastructure would make this especially appealing due to cost savings.

kevincox 4y ago

Of course this isn't the whole story. - You need to subtract the cost of road maintenance that may have been saved with less cars driving. - You need to add gas tax that wasn't collected. - You need to add the sales tax for trips that people took that they may not have otherwise. - You need to subtract the healthcare costs of reduced pollution and accidents. - Capturing carbon is less efficient that preventing it begin produced in the first place because that ignores the carbon emitted in the production of fuels and materials. Basically the word is incredibly complicated. It is hard to equate this "nearly free" far with direct carbon capture.

jupp0r 4y ago
Sure, I don’t think this changes the numbers fundamentally though.