4 ms·

"It would be hugely helpful to have carbon removal technology in our climate change portfolio" Planting trees and establishing more forests is a already workin

"It would be hugely helpful to have carbon removal technology in our climate change portfolio" Planting trees and establishing more forests is a already working technology with lots of other nice side effects, while I see the "artificial carbon removal" tech often just used as a excuse to not do anything now at all and wait for the magic game changer. "Set up a CO2 removal station in the desert, power it with a few square miles of solar panels, and run it when the sun shines." And I totally like anything related to this, but as long as we build new coal plants, building this would be just symbolic. So first I would use the desert solar power for actually powering the grid, removing the need for coal.

CatWChainsaw 3y ago
The fact you were downvoted is pretty good evidence that we'll commit a mass extinction on par with the great oxygenation, denying it the whole way.
civilized 4y ago
Regarding the trees, I hope they research that claim! Regarding the concept that it's a distraction, I think that's folk behavioral psychology with an unhealthy dash of moralism. It needs to be substantiated with evidence before I take it seriously. We are talking about a real carbon mitigation research avenue that could have real benefits.
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  You mean you want quotes of people, who say climate change is not so bad, because we (will) have co2 removal tech?
  - civilized 4y ago
    I want evidence that there are people who wave away climate change because of proposed future CO2 removal tech, who would not wave away climate change if we stopped all research on CO2 removal tech. I'm not trying to impose an impossible standard here. If you can show examples of something like this happening in contexts other than climate change, I'm open to that. What I don't accept is mere folk behavioral psychology speculation driving what an entire civilization does to mitigate a massive risk.
    - hutzlibu 4y ago
      You really have not heard those people? Lucky you. Anecdotically there are plenty of them, and official sources (like politicians) are of course more careful in their wording, but the sentiment is exactly this. "No real need to change the gasoline cars, as we will have CO2 removal." I can probably dig up some ugly quotes, if you like. But those are not really my circles so I have nothing at hand. (I should probably add, that I am from germany and loud cars and the making of them are important here. But I heard the same from US politicians) "What I don't accept is mere folk behavioral psychology speculation driving what an entire civilization does to mitigate a massive risk. " Well, how exactly could technical CO2 removal ever work? We burn stuff for energy and then need even more energy to recapture the side products? How would this be powered? By the sun? Solar panels still needs to be manufactured and deployed. So if we would have all energy generation by regenerative sources AND we have overcapacity - then we could also extract some of the old released CO2, true, but have you done some calculations, how much area you would need, to power a significant amount of CO2 removal? Lot's of it. Forests on the other hand grow and expand by themself, once established and undisturbed, that's the beauty of them. They also help stabilizing local climate. And the real problem of climate change for lots of people will be desertification. So more Forests reduce CO2 AND provide actual better living conditions for the people affected. A lone symbolic CO2 removal on the other hand is really limited in its usefulness, while the coal plants are burning happily.
      - civilized 4y ago
        All I'm saying is that the technical debate between these different methodologies is what matters. If we agree on that, I have no dispute with you. I don't know what carbon capture method is best or how big of an impact carbon capture can have. I would like to see the research, which is what the article is about.
        hutzlibu 4y ago
        "I would like to see the research, which is what the article is about." The article is about how big oil changed Standford's research focus. And their interest is simply to leave everything as it is and stall any further oil limitations, so they can profit, like they used to, without having to fundamentally change. But yes, they are totally free to fund research that is in their interest and if they happen to find a magic solution acceptable to society, I am thrilled. I am just very sceptical that this is what will happen. I rather suspect it will be symbolism used by willing populistic politicians, to block uncomforthable legislation or stall it completely. I just see no technical ground for this to really work, other than wishful thinking. And if the latter is the base, then it won't work, no matter how millions you spend on it.
myrmidon 4y ago
Planting trees is not really viable to deal with CO2 emissions on any significant scale. Assuming a tree absorbs around 20kg of CO2/year, you'd need to plant 250 trees per year (!!) for every single passenger vehicle (~5tons of CO2/year). And the problem does not stop there-- these numbers only work for the first 20 or so years of tree growth, and afterwards you have to seal you trees (under high pressure to turn them into hydrocarbons? :P) or plant even more trees to compensate for older trees decomposing (releasing CO2).
- peteradio 4y ago
  Kind of sounds amazing if we could pull it off (of course we can't) but imagine a world where there is just too much wood (woodworkers be salivating) and there are massive jungles everywhere we could fit one.
  - hutzlibu 4y ago
    "imagine a world where there is just too much wood (woodworkers be salivating) and there are massive jungles everywhere we could fit one." That's how the world looked like, before humans chopped or burned them down and let cattle, goats and sheep prevented new forests from growing again. Reforesting at least parts of that back, would capture significant amounts of CO2. No matter that a old tree composes at some point, because at the same time another tree growing where the old one stood, will compensate that.
    - peteradio 4y ago
      What regions of the world are we talking about? Northern Africa? South America?
      - hutzlibu 4y ago
        All of them? Except the iciest colds in the north and most arid deserts, forests used to be the norm. edit: of course not every land was covered by forests, prairie also existed natural, but forests were a lot more common, than they are today.

CatWChainsaw 3y ago

The fact you were downvoted is pretty good evidence that we'll commit a mass extinction on par with the great oxygenation, denying it the whole way.

civilized 4y ago

Regarding the trees, I hope they research that claim! Regarding the concept that it's a distraction, I think that's folk behavioral psychology with an unhealthy dash of moralism. It needs to be substantiated with evidence before I take it seriously. We are talking about a real carbon mitigation research avenue that could have real benefits.

hutzlibu 4y ago
You mean you want quotes of people, who say climate change is not so bad, because we (will) have co2 removal tech?
- civilized 4y ago
  I want evidence that there are people who wave away climate change because of proposed future CO2 removal tech, who would not wave away climate change if we stopped all research on CO2 removal tech. I'm not trying to impose an impossible standard here. If you can show examples of something like this happening in contexts other than climate change, I'm open to that. What I don't accept is mere folk behavioral psychology speculation driving what an entire civilization does to mitigate a massive risk.
  - hutzlibu 4y ago
    You really have not heard those people? Lucky you. Anecdotically there are plenty of them, and official sources (like politicians) are of course more careful in their wording, but the sentiment is exactly this. "No real need to change the gasoline cars, as we will have CO2 removal." I can probably dig up some ugly quotes, if you like. But those are not really my circles so I have nothing at hand. (I should probably add, that I am from germany and loud cars and the making of them are important here. But I heard the same from US politicians) "What I don't accept is mere folk behavioral psychology speculation driving what an entire civilization does to mitigate a massive risk. " Well, how exactly could technical CO2 removal ever work? We burn stuff for energy and then need even more energy to recapture the side products? How would this be powered? By the sun? Solar panels still needs to be manufactured and deployed. So if we would have all energy generation by regenerative sources AND we have overcapacity - then we could also extract some of the old released CO2, true, but have you done some calculations, how much area you would need, to power a significant amount of CO2 removal? Lot's of it. Forests on the other hand grow and expand by themself, once established and undisturbed, that's the beauty of them. They also help stabilizing local climate. And the real problem of climate change for lots of people will be desertification. So more Forests reduce CO2 AND provide actual better living conditions for the people affected. A lone symbolic CO2 removal on the other hand is really limited in its usefulness, while the coal plants are burning happily.
    - civilized 4y ago
      All I'm saying is that the technical debate between these different methodologies is what matters. If we agree on that, I have no dispute with you. I don't know what carbon capture method is best or how big of an impact carbon capture can have. I would like to see the research, which is what the article is about.
      - hutzlibu 4y ago
        "I would like to see the research, which is what the article is about." The article is about how big oil changed Standford's research focus. And their interest is simply to leave everything as it is and stall any further oil limitations, so they can profit, like they used to, without having to fundamentally change. But yes, they are totally free to fund research that is in their interest and if they happen to find a magic solution acceptable to society, I am thrilled. I am just very sceptical that this is what will happen. I rather suspect it will be symbolism used by willing populistic politicians, to block uncomforthable legislation or stall it completely. I just see no technical ground for this to really work, other than wishful thinking. And if the latter is the base, then it won't work, no matter how millions you spend on it.

myrmidon 4y ago

Planting trees is not really viable to deal with CO2 emissions on any significant scale. Assuming a tree absorbs around 20kg of CO2/year, you'd need to plant 250 trees per year (!!) for every single passenger vehicle (~5tons of CO2/year). And the problem does not stop there-- these numbers only work for the first 20 or so years of tree growth, and afterwards you have to seal you trees (under high pressure to turn them into hydrocarbons? :P) or plant even more trees to compensate for older trees decomposing (releasing CO2).

peteradio 4y ago
Kind of sounds amazing if we could pull it off (of course we can't) but imagine a world where there is just too much wood (woodworkers be salivating) and there are massive jungles everywhere we could fit one.
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  "imagine a world where there is just too much wood (woodworkers be salivating) and there are massive jungles everywhere we could fit one." That's how the world looked like, before humans chopped or burned them down and let cattle, goats and sheep prevented new forests from growing again. Reforesting at least parts of that back, would capture significant amounts of CO2. No matter that a old tree composes at some point, because at the same time another tree growing where the old one stood, will compensate that.
  - peteradio 4y ago
    What regions of the world are we talking about? Northern Africa? South America?
    - hutzlibu 4y ago
      All of them? Except the iciest colds in the north and most arid deserts, forests used to be the norm. edit: of course not every land was covered by forests, prairie also existed natural, but forests were a lot more common, than they are today.