3 ms·

> But, this involves funding development and use of an actual technology to actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere. And how is that better than putting the m

> But, this involves funding development and use of an actual technology to actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere. And how is that better than putting the money toward solar panels or other renewable energy sources?

rcxdude 3y ago
The first thing to understand is that money at this stage is mostly investment: the goal is to develop the technology and try to scale it up, not to just offset the carbon in the short term (in much the same way as investment in solar was not just to generate electricity but to enable economies of scale to actually get it to be a serious contender for replacing fossil fuels). Why is such technology important to invest in? Two main reasons: firstly it could very well be the most economical means to make certain carbon-emitting processes carbon neutral, for cases where there is not currently a good means to eliminate the carbon emissions. Think aircraft emissions, for example. Secondly, even if we completely eliminate net carbon emissions, global warming will still continue for a fair few decades, as the climate takes a long time to actually reach equilibrium. If we want to avoid that equilibrium being too hot, we will need to remove carbon from the atmosphere. And while planting trees is generally a good thing, it's not really a feasible way to actually remove enough carbon from the atmosphere to make much of a dent (only growing new forests generally removes much carbon: mature forests are mostly carbon neutral, and the carbon capture process is slow). Technology like this, if it can be scaled and use renewable energy, has a chance of being able to make this difference (though the biggest question, apart from whether the technology can actually work, is who will pay for such removal, if it's not for carbon credits).
_aavaa_ 3y ago
I don’t believe that it is. My sibling comment even argues for needing to invest in technologies for removing carbon from the air because we need a way to remove the CO2 that’s already up there. I believe that putting this same money into building more renewables is better use for the money. We can worry about removing CO2 from the atmosphere once we stop dumping immense quantities of it. That being said, this problem is as much economical as technical. Microsoft, want to help reduce CO2 levels? Spend this money on lobbing to introduce carbon prices, e.g. see Canada’s carbon tax or the EU carbon tax WITH a border adjustment.
- harpooniker 3y ago
  [flagged]
satvikpendem 3y ago
We must both remove existing carbon from the air as well as not emit more carbon. They are different goals, one does not replace the other.
- Retric 3y ago
  Not really, as long as we hit net zero fast enough that’s sufficient. People working on carbon capture are really trying to sell the idea of carbon capture but it’s optional. Earth slowly returns to equilibrium point well below current CO2 levels without our intervention and current levels aren’t so high as to be unlivable. So the only question we need to ask is if it’s easier to cut emissions or sequester them.
  - rapind 3y ago
    > So the only question we need to ask is if it’s easier to cut emissions or sequester them. I can think of another. How do we get everyone to do the answer to your question? I think it’s fine to identify what’s most efficient in a political vacuum, so long as we then address how we actually convince people to do it (lower consumption & emissions).
    - harpooniker 3y ago
      [flagged]
  - hedora 3y ago
    We had to hit net zero 10-20 years ago. We’re already hitting climate tipping points, so we’re already committed to some form of climate engineering. The lowest risk approach to that is carbon capture.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    > So the only question we need to ask is if it’s easier to cut emissions or sequester them. At the start, cutting is much easier. But each percent is harder to cut than the last. There is a point where cutting costs more than sequestering.
slothtrop 3y ago
Not mutually exclusive, and the plummeting cost of solar makes it increasingly competitive anyway.

rcxdude 3y ago

The first thing to understand is that money at this stage is mostly investment: the goal is to develop the technology and try to scale it up, not to just offset the carbon in the short term (in much the same way as investment in solar was not just to generate electricity but to enable economies of scale to actually get it to be a serious contender for replacing fossil fuels). Why is such technology important to invest in? Two main reasons: firstly it could very well be the most economical means to make certain carbon-emitting processes carbon neutral, for cases where there is not currently a good means to eliminate the carbon emissions. Think aircraft emissions, for example. Secondly, even if we completely eliminate net carbon emissions, global warming will still continue for a fair few decades, as the climate takes a long time to actually reach equilibrium. If we want to avoid that equilibrium being too hot, we will need to remove carbon from the atmosphere. And while planting trees is generally a good thing, it's not really a feasible way to actually remove enough carbon from the atmosphere to make much of a dent (only growing new forests generally removes much carbon: mature forests are mostly carbon neutral, and the carbon capture process is slow). Technology like this, if it can be scaled and use renewable energy, has a chance of being able to make this difference (though the biggest question, apart from whether the technology can actually work, is who will pay for such removal, if it's not for carbon credits).

_aavaa_ 3y ago

I don’t believe that it is. My sibling comment even argues for needing to invest in technologies for removing carbon from the air because we need a way to remove the CO2 that’s already up there. I believe that putting this same money into building more renewables is better use for the money. We can worry about removing CO2 from the atmosphere once we stop dumping immense quantities of it. That being said, this problem is as much economical as technical. Microsoft, want to help reduce CO2 levels? Spend this money on lobbing to introduce carbon prices, e.g. see Canada’s carbon tax or the EU carbon tax WITH a border adjustment.

harpooniker 3y ago
[flagged]

satvikpendem 3y ago

We must both remove existing carbon from the air as well as not emit more carbon. They are different goals, one does not replace the other.

Retric 3y ago
Not really, as long as we hit net zero fast enough that’s sufficient. People working on carbon capture are really trying to sell the idea of carbon capture but it’s optional. Earth slowly returns to equilibrium point well below current CO2 levels without our intervention and current levels aren’t so high as to be unlivable. So the only question we need to ask is if it’s easier to cut emissions or sequester them.
- rapind 3y ago
  > So the only question we need to ask is if it’s easier to cut emissions or sequester them. I can think of another. How do we get everyone to do the answer to your question? I think it’s fine to identify what’s most efficient in a political vacuum, so long as we then address how we actually convince people to do it (lower consumption & emissions).
  - harpooniker 3y ago
    [flagged]
- hedora 3y ago
  We had to hit net zero 10-20 years ago. We’re already hitting climate tipping points, so we’re already committed to some form of climate engineering. The lowest risk approach to that is carbon capture.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  > So the only question we need to ask is if it’s easier to cut emissions or sequester them. At the start, cutting is much easier. But each percent is harder to cut than the last. There is a point where cutting costs more than sequestering.

slothtrop 3y ago

Not mutually exclusive, and the plummeting cost of solar makes it increasingly competitive anyway.