5 ms·

In my view, I don't see how DAC isn't part of the larger solution. I'm not some industry shill, but without some removal of what we've already put in the air wh

In my view, I don't see how DAC isn't part of the larger solution. I'm not some industry shill, but without some removal of what we've already put in the air what realistic course do we have to sustainable atmospheric CO2? Even reductions in CO2 by nations still creates net positive, forests will eventually be unable to absorb more CO2, etc.

_aavaa_ 3y ago
Before trying to solve the hard problem of removing CO2 out of the air, how about we spend our money on the low hanging fruit: stop burning fossil fuels.
- jimmaswell 3y ago
  Massively disrupting the global economy before alternatives are ready isn't a low hanging fruit.
  - _aavaa_ 3y ago
    Building new power generation to replace fossil fuels is not disruptioning the global economy.
- mattashii 3y ago
  > how about we spend our money on the low hanging fruit: stop burning fossil fuels. That fruit is hanging quite high if you actually want to pick it. Carbon sequestering is becoming more and more of a requirement to keep global temperatures in check, and I think it is better to invest some money right now so that the research and engineering can provide interest over a longer period of time. We just don't have the time to wait until 2050 to get started on that technology - we need it ASAP, together with 0 emissions.
  - _aavaa_ 3y ago
    Except this is championed by fossil fuel companies as a way to not have to reduce emissions on the first place. Goes something like this: look at us investing for the future so that you don’t have to worry or stop burning in the present.
    - jimmaswell 3y ago
      If (big if) sequestering is enough to bring net carbon down while not reducing emissions, then it's still a win to do so and not reduce emissions. Slowing or reversing climate change is the terminal goal, not reducing emissions.
      - _aavaa_ 3y ago
        I don't follow. Option 1: Build green energy + DAC + keep burning fossil fuels. Option 2: Build green energy + turn off fossil fuel generation stations. DAC removes about as much CO2 with that green energy as would be removed by simply using that green energy to lower the CO2 intensity of the USA electrical grid. The difference is that with Option 1 you are still burning fossil fuels (and there is more than just CO2 being produced) and you need even more green energy to replace the fossil fuel generation. Option 2 skips ahead and turns off those plants sooner rather than later.
        mattashii 3y ago
        You are ignoring option 3: Build green energy + DAC + turn off fossil fuel -based generator stations. We've already emitted more CO2 than is healthy for the world's climate, DAC or other methods to remove CO2 from the atmosphere are all but required at this point.
        _aavaa_ 3y ago
        Yes, except a) public funds are zero sum. Every dollar we spent on building DACs is a dollar we don’t spend on building green energy. See [0], the coal line is going down, but it’s mostly being replace by natural gas. An improvement to be sure, but not enough. The renewable line could be much higher with more public funding. 1.2bn builds a lot of solar/wind/hydro… And b) again it’s easier to “remove” CO2 from the atmosphere by not putting it there in the first place. By the way, spending public money on DAC (rather than fining the fossil fuel companies and requiring them to build them) is allowing the fossil fuel companies to push the costs of cleaning up their mess onto the public the while privatizing the profit. [0]: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48896 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48896
- HelloMcFly 3y ago
  How about we stop creating false dichotomies of action, and take multiple paths to solve this existential crisis? I understand you are saying this is a smokescreen by the fossil fuel industry to avoid reducing emissions. You're probably right! But that doesn't mean this isn't a valuable and perhaps necessary complement to reducing emissions as well, and frankly if the fossil fuel industry can sequester enough carbon to offset their emissions then so be it (note: this won't happen). More likely, I see this as a way to mitigate some of the past damage as we continue reducing our emissions with renewables. Ultimately we need to go net negative, and at the moment these marginal investments in the technology are worth exploring in my opinion.

_aavaa_ 3y ago

Before trying to solve the hard problem of removing CO2 out of the air, how about we spend our money on the low hanging fruit: stop burning fossil fuels.

jimmaswell 3y ago
Massively disrupting the global economy before alternatives are ready isn't a low hanging fruit.
- _aavaa_ 3y ago
  Building new power generation to replace fossil fuels is not disruptioning the global economy.
mattashii 3y ago
> how about we spend our money on the low hanging fruit: stop burning fossil fuels. That fruit is hanging quite high if you actually want to pick it. Carbon sequestering is becoming more and more of a requirement to keep global temperatures in check, and I think it is better to invest some money right now so that the research and engineering can provide interest over a longer period of time. We just don't have the time to wait until 2050 to get started on that technology - we need it ASAP, together with 0 emissions.
- _aavaa_ 3y ago
  Except this is championed by fossil fuel companies as a way to not have to reduce emissions on the first place. Goes something like this: look at us investing for the future so that you don’t have to worry or stop burning in the present.
  - jimmaswell 3y ago
    If (big if) sequestering is enough to bring net carbon down while not reducing emissions, then it's still a win to do so and not reduce emissions. Slowing or reversing climate change is the terminal goal, not reducing emissions.
    - _aavaa_ 3y ago
      I don't follow. Option 1: Build green energy + DAC + keep burning fossil fuels. Option 2: Build green energy + turn off fossil fuel generation stations. DAC removes about as much CO2 with that green energy as would be removed by simply using that green energy to lower the CO2 intensity of the USA electrical grid. The difference is that with Option 1 you are still burning fossil fuels (and there is more than just CO2 being produced) and you need even more green energy to replace the fossil fuel generation. Option 2 skips ahead and turns off those plants sooner rather than later.
      - mattashii 3y ago
        You are ignoring option 3: Build green energy + DAC + turn off fossil fuel -based generator stations. We've already emitted more CO2 than is healthy for the world's climate, DAC or other methods to remove CO2 from the atmosphere are all but required at this point.
        _aavaa_ 3y ago
        Yes, except a) public funds are zero sum. Every dollar we spent on building DACs is a dollar we don’t spend on building green energy. See [0], the coal line is going down, but it’s mostly being replace by natural gas. An improvement to be sure, but not enough. The renewable line could be much higher with more public funding. 1.2bn builds a lot of solar/wind/hydro… And b) again it’s easier to “remove” CO2 from the atmosphere by not putting it there in the first place. By the way, spending public money on DAC (rather than fining the fossil fuel companies and requiring them to build them) is allowing the fossil fuel companies to push the costs of cleaning up their mess onto the public the while privatizing the profit. [0]: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48896 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48896
HelloMcFly 3y ago
How about we stop creating false dichotomies of action, and take multiple paths to solve this existential crisis? I understand you are saying this is a smokescreen by the fossil fuel industry to avoid reducing emissions. You're probably right! But that doesn't mean this isn't a valuable and perhaps necessary complement to reducing emissions as well, and frankly if the fossil fuel industry can sequester enough carbon to offset their emissions then so be it (note: this won't happen). More likely, I see this as a way to mitigate some of the past damage as we continue reducing our emissions with renewables. Ultimately we need to go net negative, and at the moment these marginal investments in the technology are worth exploring in my opinion.