4 ms·

I don't understand your argument, or what your proposal/alternative is. When you say we don't need to remove CO2 now, then when? How do we get from >400ppm to

I don't understand your argument, or what your proposal/alternative is. When you say we don't need to remove CO2 now, then when? How do we get from >400ppm to say 350ppm? Even if we shut off all emissions immediately?

_aavaa_ 3y ago
My argument is fairly simple. The easiest way to get CO2 out of the atmosphere is to not put it there in the first place. We should be all of this money (and much more) to transition off of fossil fuels as quickly as possible. The sooner we electrify everything and get rid of fossil fuels the sooner we can start putting a dent int to 30+ GTonnes/year of CO2 we produce. This ship is quickly taking on water; we can focus on dumping the excess water out after we patched the hull. FYI, One of the projects being funded here is going to be co-run by Carbon Engineering, whose DAC design uses both renewables as well as natural gas to produce the electricity it needs for the process.
- sillywalk 3y ago
  > My argument is fairly simple. The easiest way to get CO2 out of the atmosphere is to not put it there in the first place.>We should be all of this money (and much more) to transition off of fossil fuels as quickly as possible. The sooner we electrify everything and get rid of fossil fuels the sooner we can start putting a dent int to 30+ GTonnes/year of CO2 we produce. Again. Even if we stop ALL EMISSIONS NOW, and blow up every fossil fuel facility on the globe, we need use DAC to remove accumulated CO2.
  - _aavaa_ 3y ago
    And again. DAC is being pushed by fossil fuel companies right now as a way of delaying us from stopping the burning of fossil fuels. I’m not saying we don’t remove CO2 from the atmosphere. I’m saying we focus our efforts on not adding more before removing what’s there.
    - earthling8118 3y ago
      Here's a hot take: we do both. Stop adding it. Also, remove it.

_aavaa_ 3y ago

My argument is fairly simple. The easiest way to get CO2 out of the atmosphere is to not put it there in the first place. We should be all of this money (and much more) to transition off of fossil fuels as quickly as possible. The sooner we electrify everything and get rid of fossil fuels the sooner we can start putting a dent int to 30+ GTonnes/year of CO2 we produce. This ship is quickly taking on water; we can focus on dumping the excess water out after we patched the hull. FYI, One of the projects being funded here is going to be co-run by Carbon Engineering, whose DAC design uses both renewables as well as natural gas to produce the electricity it needs for the process.

sillywalk 3y ago
> My argument is fairly simple. The easiest way to get CO2 out of the atmosphere is to not put it there in the first place.>We should be all of this money (and much more) to transition off of fossil fuels as quickly as possible. The sooner we electrify everything and get rid of fossil fuels the sooner we can start putting a dent int to 30+ GTonnes/year of CO2 we produce. Again. Even if we stop ALL EMISSIONS NOW, and blow up every fossil fuel facility on the globe, we need use DAC to remove accumulated CO2.
- _aavaa_ 3y ago
  And again. DAC is being pushed by fossil fuel companies right now as a way of delaying us from stopping the burning of fossil fuels. I’m not saying we don’t remove CO2 from the atmosphere. I’m saying we focus our efforts on not adding more before removing what’s there.
  - earthling8118 3y ago
    Here's a hot take: we do both. Stop adding it. Also, remove it.