3 ms·

> The earth naturally sequesters carbon on its own, we are simply vastly outpacing that process.So no we don’t need artificial carbon sequestration to hit even

> The earth naturally sequesters carbon on its own, we are simply vastly outpacing that process.So no we don’t need artificial carbon sequestration to hit even preindustrial levels again. Debatable: not only have human activities taken over huge swathes of land which previously sequestered carbon (aka forests), we have been releasing huge amounts of carbon which had been sequestered through processes which basically can not work anymore, at least not naturally. There is no millions of years of trees being buried wholesale because fungi haven’t evolved peroxisade yet, because they did, a while ago, and so dead trees rot and release their carbon.

Retric 3y ago
Carbon sequestration down to a tiny fraction of atmospheric carbon has happened all the way back when phytoplankton first showed up causing the Oxygen Holocaust and has been steady since then. Volcanic activity releases an enormous quantity of net carbon over time, but that carbon doesn’t accumulate in the atmosphere. The misconception around the lack of fungi resulting in massive sequestration is that carbon would have been sequestered either way. It was similarly limited by the amount of carbon available per year from volcanic activity, what changed was the location of carbon storage not the net rate it was stored.
- masklinn 3y ago
  > Volcanic activity releases an enormous quantity of net carbon over time, but that carbon doesn’t accumulate in the atmosphere. Volcanic activity releases nearly 2 orders of magnitude less carbon than humanity does. That’s a much easier amount to cycle. > The misconception around the lack of fungi resulting in massive sequestration is that carbon would have been sequestered either way. By the process of magic? Because if that’s your hypothesis you need to explain why that magic was overwhelmingly more active during the Carboniferous than at any other epoch.
  - Retric 3y ago
    > By the process of magic. No, by other carbon sinks like dead ocean algae. > Volcanic activity releases nearly 2 orders of magnitude less carbon than humanity does But they have been around far more than just 2 orders of magnitude as long. Between the great oxygen event and the emergence of woody plants volcanic processes releasing ~100,000x as much all of humanity across all of human history yet levels didn’t hit 90% CO2. Further woody plants didn’t increase the rate of carbon release by volcanoes so across such long timescales they had zero net effect on total carbon sequestration. So, across long timescales it was on average 100% of all new carbon before they showed up and it remained 100% of all new carbon afterwards. What changed was where the carbon ended up, the ocean floor sees subduction into the mantle, woody plants stuck around on the surface. Now, yes on human timescales these things seem slow but net zero + 1,000 years really will have a noticeable impact.
411111111111111 3y ago
Humans are responsible for about 1% of annual co2 emissions. What they said is spot on: the problem would go away in short order if we ceased all emissions today. That’s obviously not going to happen though, and the original argument is spot on too: the technology is just socialised greenwashing. It’s basically only there to postpone legislature and offload the cost to tax payers while keeping private profits high.
- fuzzfactor 3y ago
  >It’s basically only there to postpone legislature and offload the cost to tax payers while keeping private profits high. Not just taxpayers, every living thing has to endure the increasing effect of failed climate preservation. As we have seen there's not really enough taxpayers to make a difference, what's more effective would be voters but there's even far less of them since voting is prohibited most places and proven ineffective for this purpose almost everywhere else. The after-effect is spread so far & wide that's one more reason why it's been so lucrative not to do the most effective emission reduction immediately, since the outset of gassifying as much carbon as industrialists could possibly do, far in excess of what the earth has been able to naturally capture for eons. In natural science, renewable energy is still far more effectively employed for reducing the need for emissions, secondarily for near-complete source capture. The only viable energy that can be sensibly devoted to air capture appears to be pure waste energy for the forseeable future. Most probably still better recovered and used for conservation instead. You realistically can't fool mother nature. Where are all the CO2-trapping chemicals going to come from without prohibitive amounts of additional emissions unless that chemical process is driven by only pure waste energy as well? Using even renewable energy for any part of direct air capture simply reduces the benefit of that valuable low-cost energy to that of pure waste energy instead. Thermodynamics is supposed to be top-of-mind here, not mumbo-jumbo. When you read the article one of the first things you see is: >1. Air is drawn in through a fan located inside the collector. Once sucked in, it passes through a filter located inside the collector which traps the carbon dioxide particles. Umm, no. Atmospheric CO2 does not exist in particle form at temperatures much above minus 78 degrees C. Who writes this stuff? >2. When the filter is completely full of CO₂, the collector closes, and the temperature rises to about 100°C — about the same temperature it takes to boil water for a cup of tea! That's supposed to be exciting? One can safely assume the temperature of significant sized filters will not rise all by itself, boiling water for a cup of tea that big may very likely take enough energy to more than offset what could be accomplished if the energy could be diverted to conservation or emission reduction instead. Not exactly my cup of tea as a chemist experienced with material balance on a large scale. >3. This causes the filter to release the CO₂ so we can finally collect it. Now once the "captured" CO2 is released (re-gassified) again in more concentrated form like this, you can expect an additional collection/capture mechanism to be orders of magnitude more physically effective. All signs point to increased effectiveness of capture in proportion to the ppm content of the CO2 present. More or less the same technology needed for direct source capture, so why not just capture at the source instead? Duh. In the research lab you can purchase trapping chemicals easily within the reach of most budgets whether grants or "investments", and as you scale up you will definitely reach more attractive but false economies of scale until eventually the diminishing returns fall far short of what is needed to make a significant difference to the planet as a whole. Who's willing to settle for putting research dollars, or worse large amounts of renewable energy into not making much of a difference anyway? Ha, I think I've found it. That was easy. Elsewhere on the website, preceded by their partnership with JPMorgan announced a week ago: >Climeworks published a statement calling for a clear distinction between emissions reductions and carbon dioxide removal >Reductions and removals have different roles to play Correct, one conserves resources and the other wastes resources better put to use in further conservation until after massive conservation efforts have fully halted rising atmospheric concentrations. >1. Limiting the moral hazard It presents a simple way to mitigate the moral hazard coming with carbon dioxide removals, as it makes for greater clarity over the role, foreseen share, and timing of removals alongside accelerated emissions reduction. Obviously the most pressing hazard they will be addressing together is the moral threat to JPMorgan more so than the climate threat to the rest of the planet. They might not have even invested enough for that limited an approach yet. Looks like there's more to come, maybe whatever it takes, this could be a bigger threat than people realize and might need to be overcome at all costs. >2. Adding integrity to carbon markets It adds further integrity to carbon markets and climate policy, as it allows for clarity and aligns with best practice concerning "net-zero", where carbon removal credits need to be singled out to counterbalance residual emissions. The highest integrity will not be achieved as long as there remains a market for carbon in excess of that which can be captured naturally and through waste energy combined. This means reduction in market size for high-energy carbon forms much more so than CO2 whose energy has been fully depleted. As long as JPMorgan continues to earn more from fossil fuels than they invest in reduction or capture, they can afford for the capture investment to be largely ineffective, maybe even some financial writeoffs could be possible allowing for indefinite maintenance of status-quo. $200 Million sounds like a lot of money because it is, lots of people will prosper financially as the funds are dispersed, but the continued CO2 dispersal will always be much wider than having the same money focused on conservation instead. Also to some large firms, especially in aggregate, $200 Million is just a drop in the bucket. >3. Responsible deployment It provides a framework wherein carbon removals can be deployed in a responsible and just manner, in addition and complementary to vast and rapid emission reductions and avoidances. How much have they put into the these rapid emission reductions and avoidances that are the only thing within anyone's reach to make much of a difference in the short term? >4. A question of scale CDR urgently needs a dedicated framework with opportunities to scale the entire sector, as well as guardrails against a deployment that is incompatible with global sustainability objectives. A dedicated CDR framework allows to tackle these aspects in the most effective way. Effective for who, the climate itself needs much more scale on emission reduction before capture makes sense. >In summary, it presents a scientifically sound framework to deliver on the temperature targets set within the Paris Climate Accord. Not as scientifically sound as it could be. Just because you can actually capture kilos of CO2 doesn't mean that is the best use of your time, resources, and energy when it comes to climate action overall. Regulatory capture just may not be enough, how about hedging your bets with a bit of scientist capture too? Who's any good at large-scale hedging around here anyway?

Retric 3y ago

Carbon sequestration down to a tiny fraction of atmospheric carbon has happened all the way back when phytoplankton first showed up causing the Oxygen Holocaust and has been steady since then. Volcanic activity releases an enormous quantity of net carbon over time, but that carbon doesn’t accumulate in the atmosphere. The misconception around the lack of fungi resulting in massive sequestration is that carbon would have been sequestered either way. It was similarly limited by the amount of carbon available per year from volcanic activity, what changed was the location of carbon storage not the net rate it was stored.

masklinn 3y ago
> Volcanic activity releases an enormous quantity of net carbon over time, but that carbon doesn’t accumulate in the atmosphere. Volcanic activity releases nearly 2 orders of magnitude less carbon than humanity does. That’s a much easier amount to cycle. > The misconception around the lack of fungi resulting in massive sequestration is that carbon would have been sequestered either way. By the process of magic? Because if that’s your hypothesis you need to explain why that magic was overwhelmingly more active during the Carboniferous than at any other epoch.
- Retric 3y ago
  > By the process of magic. No, by other carbon sinks like dead ocean algae. > Volcanic activity releases nearly 2 orders of magnitude less carbon than humanity does But they have been around far more than just 2 orders of magnitude as long. Between the great oxygen event and the emergence of woody plants volcanic processes releasing ~100,000x as much all of humanity across all of human history yet levels didn’t hit 90% CO2. Further woody plants didn’t increase the rate of carbon release by volcanoes so across such long timescales they had zero net effect on total carbon sequestration. So, across long timescales it was on average 100% of all new carbon before they showed up and it remained 100% of all new carbon afterwards. What changed was where the carbon ended up, the ocean floor sees subduction into the mantle, woody plants stuck around on the surface. Now, yes on human timescales these things seem slow but net zero + 1,000 years really will have a noticeable impact.

411111111111111 3y ago

Humans are responsible for about 1% of annual co2 emissions. What they said is spot on: the problem would go away in short order if we ceased all emissions today. That’s obviously not going to happen though, and the original argument is spot on too: the technology is just socialised greenwashing. It’s basically only there to postpone legislature and offload the cost to tax payers while keeping private profits high.

fuzzfactor 3y ago
>It’s basically only there to postpone legislature and offload the cost to tax payers while keeping private profits high. Not just taxpayers, every living thing has to endure the increasing effect of failed climate preservation. As we have seen there's not really enough taxpayers to make a difference, what's more effective would be voters but there's even far less of them since voting is prohibited most places and proven ineffective for this purpose almost everywhere else. The after-effect is spread so far & wide that's one more reason why it's been so lucrative not to do the most effective emission reduction immediately, since the outset of gassifying as much carbon as industrialists could possibly do, far in excess of what the earth has been able to naturally capture for eons. In natural science, renewable energy is still far more effectively employed for reducing the need for emissions, secondarily for near-complete source capture. The only viable energy that can be sensibly devoted to air capture appears to be pure waste energy for the forseeable future. Most probably still better recovered and used for conservation instead. You realistically can't fool mother nature. Where are all the CO2-trapping chemicals going to come from without prohibitive amounts of additional emissions unless that chemical process is driven by only pure waste energy as well? Using even renewable energy for any part of direct air capture simply reduces the benefit of that valuable low-cost energy to that of pure waste energy instead. Thermodynamics is supposed to be top-of-mind here, not mumbo-jumbo. When you read the article one of the first things you see is: >1. Air is drawn in through a fan located inside the collector. Once sucked in, it passes through a filter located inside the collector which traps the carbon dioxide particles. Umm, no. Atmospheric CO2 does not exist in particle form at temperatures much above minus 78 degrees C. Who writes this stuff? >2. When the filter is completely full of CO₂, the collector closes, and the temperature rises to about 100°C — about the same temperature it takes to boil water for a cup of tea! That's supposed to be exciting? One can safely assume the temperature of significant sized filters will not rise all by itself, boiling water for a cup of tea that big may very likely take enough energy to more than offset what could be accomplished if the energy could be diverted to conservation or emission reduction instead. Not exactly my cup of tea as a chemist experienced with material balance on a large scale. >3. This causes the filter to release the CO₂ so we can finally collect it. Now once the "captured" CO2 is released (re-gassified) again in more concentrated form like this, you can expect an additional collection/capture mechanism to be orders of magnitude more physically effective. All signs point to increased effectiveness of capture in proportion to the ppm content of the CO2 present. More or less the same technology needed for direct source capture, so why not just capture at the source instead? Duh. In the research lab you can purchase trapping chemicals easily within the reach of most budgets whether grants or "investments", and as you scale up you will definitely reach more attractive but false economies of scale until eventually the diminishing returns fall far short of what is needed to make a significant difference to the planet as a whole. Who's willing to settle for putting research dollars, or worse large amounts of renewable energy into not making much of a difference anyway? Ha, I think I've found it. That was easy. Elsewhere on the website, preceded by their partnership with JPMorgan announced a week ago: >Climeworks published a statement calling for a clear distinction between emissions reductions and carbon dioxide removal >Reductions and removals have different roles to play Correct, one conserves resources and the other wastes resources better put to use in further conservation until after massive conservation efforts have fully halted rising atmospheric concentrations. >1. Limiting the moral hazard It presents a simple way to mitigate the moral hazard coming with carbon dioxide removals, as it makes for greater clarity over the role, foreseen share, and timing of removals alongside accelerated emissions reduction. Obviously the most pressing hazard they will be addressing together is the moral threat to JPMorgan more so than the climate threat to the rest of the planet. They might not have even invested enough for that limited an approach yet. Looks like there's more to come, maybe whatever it takes, this could be a bigger threat than people realize and might need to be overcome at all costs. >2. Adding integrity to carbon markets It adds further integrity to carbon markets and climate policy, as it allows for clarity and aligns with best practice concerning "net-zero", where carbon removal credits need to be singled out to counterbalance residual emissions. The highest integrity will not be achieved as long as there remains a market for carbon in excess of that which can be captured naturally and through waste energy combined. This means reduction in market size for high-energy carbon forms much more so than CO2 whose energy has been fully depleted. As long as JPMorgan continues to earn more from fossil fuels than they invest in reduction or capture, they can afford for the capture investment to be largely ineffective, maybe even some financial writeoffs could be possible allowing for indefinite maintenance of status-quo. $200 Million sounds like a lot of money because it is, lots of people will prosper financially as the funds are dispersed, but the continued CO2 dispersal will always be much wider than having the same money focused on conservation instead. Also to some large firms, especially in aggregate, $200 Million is just a drop in the bucket. >3. Responsible deployment It provides a framework wherein carbon removals can be deployed in a responsible and just manner, in addition and complementary to vast and rapid emission reductions and avoidances. How much have they put into the these rapid emission reductions and avoidances that are the only thing within anyone's reach to make much of a difference in the short term? >4. A question of scale CDR urgently needs a dedicated framework with opportunities to scale the entire sector, as well as guardrails against a deployment that is incompatible with global sustainability objectives. A dedicated CDR framework allows to tackle these aspects in the most effective way. Effective for who, the climate itself needs much more scale on emission reduction before capture makes sense. >In summary, it presents a scientifically sound framework to deliver on the temperature targets set within the Paris Climate Accord. Not as scientifically sound as it could be. Just because you can actually capture kilos of CO2 doesn't mean that is the best use of your time, resources, and energy when it comes to climate action overall. Regulatory capture just may not be enough, how about hedging your bets with a bit of scientist capture too? Who's any good at large-scale hedging around here anyway?