6 ms·

If you look around this thread, you'll see plenty of people suggesting exactly that - that it's actually better to focus on carbon capture, that it's more doabl

If you look around this thread, you'll see plenty of people suggesting exactly that - that it's actually better to focus on carbon capture, that it's more doable than reduction etc. The reality is just the opposite: the only option for stopping climate change is to reduce CO2 emissions completely. Now, if we were at a point where we're emitting some few tens of millions of tonnes instead of the 40B we emit today, maybe then carbon capture to help offset the last few trickles would make some sense - but not before then, not in any way shape or form.

mmiliauskas 3y ago
> Galactic Federation President: Gentlemen, there's a solution here you are not seeing. > [Galactic Federation President blows his brains out]
- znpy 3y ago
  Rick and Morty reference?
  - mmiliauskas 3y ago
    Yup :D
permo-w 3y ago
there are a lot of people arguing strongly for one xor the other. reduction in harm and reduction in use are both good things. neither need to be prioritised more than the other. however, one is easier to legislate for
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  I disagree. There are limited resources to spend on this issue, physically, and politically, and economically. Every bit of carbon capture technology that you build is taking up resources that would be infinitely better spent on carbon emission reductions: more efficient devices, more robust consumer products that can be replaced once a decade or less, more local production to reduce long-distance transportation, PR campaigns against over consumption, etc. And again, carbon capture is simply not a viable technology. It's almost like using a shovel to take water from a leaking pipe and move it to a nearby puddle: lots of effort for little gain, and there's no guarantee that the puddle won't connect back to the leak. Not to mention, most of those who peddle it are outright dishonest. Most have 0 plans for storage, and instead plan to "re-use the captured carbon", for example to grow plants mute efficiently in green houses, which is to say, to release it back at a slightly lower rate. And finally, even if by some magic the effort was somewhat successful, and we built up huge deposits of sequestered carbon, the most likely next step is for some idiot politician to start advocating for burning it as soon as the trend became slightly positive.
  - ffhhttt 3y ago
    > re-use the captured carbon I assumes that was the entire point of carbon capture? i.e. instead of introducing more carbon into the atmosphere from oil/etc. you just reuse what’s already in it?
    - kaba0 3y ago
      But.. why? The problem is that we put an insane amount of carbon into the atmosphere from million years old plants that was stored there just fine. If we just continue to circulate the existing amounts (and increase it in a tiny bit slower rate because let’s be honest, that’s the reality) we are not even a bit ahead.
      - ffhhttt 3y ago
        Because gasoline/diesel/etc. are very energy dense and much easier to store and transport than any alternativd. In some cases e.g. airplane there simply seem to be no other options (unless there is a massive breakthrough in battery tech and possibly out understanding of physics). So ‘clean’ burning synthetic fuels don’t seem like a terrible idea. Of course it all comes down to energy efficiency, but if solar/wind continue growing and carbon capture somehow becomes cost-efficient (assuming free solar/wind energy) it seems like a much better option than continuing oil extraction or even biofuels (which of course is also technically “carbon capture” just not very land/water efficient). > we are not even a bit ahead. Of course. But how does it make it different from every other option? Moving to 100% renewables won’t reverse climate change either .
    - tsimionescu 3y ago
      No, the theoretical point of carbon capture is to take the carbon we released from the ground back into it. Ultimately, there is simply too much CO2 in the atmosphere at the moment. The long term goal has to be to permanently sequester it back into the ground - essentially reversing the last 100-200 years of burning fossil fuels, replacing everything we got from coal, oil, and gas with better alternatives so we can keep living a life that is at least as decent as today's. It is impossible for human civilization as we know it to thrive longer term if we keep the current amount of CO2 (and thus carbon) in any way that is circulating. Of course, capture can and should be the goal after we do the much much easier thing, which is not releasing even 1kg more of the already trapped carbon from the ground.
- geysersam 3y ago
  No. Just no. Just because we have two options doesn't mean both are equally good. And our resources are limited ! We cannot do everything, we have to choose.
imtringued 3y ago
>If you look around this thread, you'll see plenty of people suggesting exactly that - that it's actually better to focus on carbon capture, that it's more doable than reduction etc. If we assume a carbon capture cost of $600 per ton and storage costs of $400 per ton, then the total cost of getting rid of one ton is $1000 just to keep the math simple. 1 kWh of coal power emits 1kg of CO2. This means that your power bill wouldn't double or triple, it would quadruple even in countries like Germany where electricity prices are already high. Even if you believe in capture, you will have to quit coal and go with gas simply because that one only triples the price of electricity. You will also have to get the energy from somewhere. In fact, most of the cost of the carbon capture and storage will be in generating renewable energy to run the capture process to begin with. So what these people are implying isn't that we are going with renewables, no, the power generation of fossil fuels will be a tiny fraction of the total power generation.
chiefalchemist 3y ago
> The reality is just the opposite: the only option for stopping climate change is to reduce CO2 emissions completely Perhaps. But knowing what we know about this issue and: - our elected officials - Big Inc and Big Inc leadership - The momentum from Cronie Capitalism - The general public's inability to change habits - Humans fondness for the status quo - Etc etc etc How realistic is reduction that extreme? And if we could wouldn't we be leaning in that direction already? Note: I do agree with you in theory. I wish it were likely. But realistically I know it's not. Things are going to get worse - perhaps much worse - before they get better.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  Well, I think that people will have major changes to the status quo as climate changes become more extreme and habitable zones start to become inhabitable.
  - concordDance 3y ago
    Note that the most affected will not be the current rich countries, e.g. Europe, North America unless they choose to be by allowing in refugees. Being Northern means a few degrees of warming still has them well within the habitable zone, requiring fairly minor sacrificies to keep same quality of life.
    - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
      That seems a simplistic evaluation. North America is already experiencing anomalous weather events and climate change isn't necessarily just going to be areas getting hotter (although that will happen), but also weather patterns drastically changing. The big issue is of course food security and changing weather patterns are going to decimate some crops and result in widespread famines.
  - chiefalchemist 3y ago
    A simple example...people (in the West) can't change their diet and lifestyle for their own well being, what are the odds they'll change (e.g., less factory farmed animal proteins) for the good of others and the planet?
concordDance 3y ago
> the only option for stopping climate change is to reduce CO2 emissions completely. This is false on two counts: 1. The already released CO2 is going to happily keep warming the world for the next century even if we stop now. 2.geoengineering via sunshades or particulates would reduce warming.
- mandmandam 3y ago
  I think you can assume OP meant 'no good options', rather than 'literally no options'. 1. 'Warming' is better then 'incinerating'. Stopping now is better than stopping later. 2. What else would it do? I can't help but feel "pump even more shit into the atmosphere" isn't a wise solution for all the shit in our atmosphere.
  - concordDance 3y ago
    Wild idea for2: Moon base -> rail gun sunshades to L1 point
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  For 1, that can be a problem for when we're done accelerating things. For 2, those aren't real options, given the externalities.
  - concordDance 3y ago
    The statement was literally untrue, merely stopping CO2 emissions is insufficient. Also, the viability of geoengineering is very much up for debate.
    - tsimionescu 3y ago
      If we stopped all emissions, global warming would be capped at a certain level - basically, at a certain level of CO2 in the atmosphere you have a certain world temperature. Warming doesn't continue endlessly just because there are greenhouse gases in the atmosphere - an equilibrium is reached, at a higher temperature than the previous equilibrium with less CO2.

mmiliauskas 3y ago

> Galactic Federation President: Gentlemen, there's a solution here you are not seeing. > [Galactic Federation President blows his brains out]

znpy 3y ago
Rick and Morty reference?
- mmiliauskas 3y ago
  Yup :D

permo-w 3y ago

there are a lot of people arguing strongly for one xor the other. reduction in harm and reduction in use are both good things. neither need to be prioritised more than the other. however, one is easier to legislate for

tsimionescu 3y ago
I disagree. There are limited resources to spend on this issue, physically, and politically, and economically. Every bit of carbon capture technology that you build is taking up resources that would be infinitely better spent on carbon emission reductions: more efficient devices, more robust consumer products that can be replaced once a decade or less, more local production to reduce long-distance transportation, PR campaigns against over consumption, etc. And again, carbon capture is simply not a viable technology. It's almost like using a shovel to take water from a leaking pipe and move it to a nearby puddle: lots of effort for little gain, and there's no guarantee that the puddle won't connect back to the leak. Not to mention, most of those who peddle it are outright dishonest. Most have 0 plans for storage, and instead plan to "re-use the captured carbon", for example to grow plants mute efficiently in green houses, which is to say, to release it back at a slightly lower rate. And finally, even if by some magic the effort was somewhat successful, and we built up huge deposits of sequestered carbon, the most likely next step is for some idiot politician to start advocating for burning it as soon as the trend became slightly positive.
- ffhhttt 3y ago
  > re-use the captured carbon I assumes that was the entire point of carbon capture? i.e. instead of introducing more carbon into the atmosphere from oil/etc. you just reuse what’s already in it?
  - kaba0 3y ago
    But.. why? The problem is that we put an insane amount of carbon into the atmosphere from million years old plants that was stored there just fine. If we just continue to circulate the existing amounts (and increase it in a tiny bit slower rate because let’s be honest, that’s the reality) we are not even a bit ahead.
    - ffhhttt 3y ago
      Because gasoline/diesel/etc. are very energy dense and much easier to store and transport than any alternativd. In some cases e.g. airplane there simply seem to be no other options (unless there is a massive breakthrough in battery tech and possibly out understanding of physics). So ‘clean’ burning synthetic fuels don’t seem like a terrible idea. Of course it all comes down to energy efficiency, but if solar/wind continue growing and carbon capture somehow becomes cost-efficient (assuming free solar/wind energy) it seems like a much better option than continuing oil extraction or even biofuels (which of course is also technically “carbon capture” just not very land/water efficient). > we are not even a bit ahead. Of course. But how does it make it different from every other option? Moving to 100% renewables won’t reverse climate change either .
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    No, the theoretical point of carbon capture is to take the carbon we released from the ground back into it. Ultimately, there is simply too much CO2 in the atmosphere at the moment. The long term goal has to be to permanently sequester it back into the ground - essentially reversing the last 100-200 years of burning fossil fuels, replacing everything we got from coal, oil, and gas with better alternatives so we can keep living a life that is at least as decent as today's. It is impossible for human civilization as we know it to thrive longer term if we keep the current amount of CO2 (and thus carbon) in any way that is circulating. Of course, capture can and should be the goal after we do the much much easier thing, which is not releasing even 1kg more of the already trapped carbon from the ground.
geysersam 3y ago
No. Just no. Just because we have two options doesn't mean both are equally good. And our resources are limited ! We cannot do everything, we have to choose.

imtringued 3y ago

>If you look around this thread, you'll see plenty of people suggesting exactly that - that it's actually better to focus on carbon capture, that it's more doable than reduction etc. If we assume a carbon capture cost of $600 per ton and storage costs of $400 per ton, then the total cost of getting rid of one ton is $1000 just to keep the math simple. 1 kWh of coal power emits 1kg of CO2. This means that your power bill wouldn't double or triple, it would quadruple even in countries like Germany where electricity prices are already high. Even if you believe in capture, you will have to quit coal and go with gas simply because that one only triples the price of electricity. You will also have to get the energy from somewhere. In fact, most of the cost of the carbon capture and storage will be in generating renewable energy to run the capture process to begin with. So what these people are implying isn't that we are going with renewables, no, the power generation of fossil fuels will be a tiny fraction of the total power generation.

chiefalchemist 3y ago

> The reality is just the opposite: the only option for stopping climate change is to reduce CO2 emissions completely Perhaps. But knowing what we know about this issue and: - our elected officials - Big Inc and Big Inc leadership - The momentum from Cronie Capitalism - The general public's inability to change habits - Humans fondness for the status quo - Etc etc etc How realistic is reduction that extreme? And if we could wouldn't we be leaning in that direction already? Note: I do agree with you in theory. I wish it were likely. But realistically I know it's not. Things are going to get worse - perhaps much worse - before they get better.

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
Well, I think that people will have major changes to the status quo as climate changes become more extreme and habitable zones start to become inhabitable.
- concordDance 3y ago
  Note that the most affected will not be the current rich countries, e.g. Europe, North America unless they choose to be by allowing in refugees. Being Northern means a few degrees of warming still has them well within the habitable zone, requiring fairly minor sacrificies to keep same quality of life.
  - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
    That seems a simplistic evaluation. North America is already experiencing anomalous weather events and climate change isn't necessarily just going to be areas getting hotter (although that will happen), but also weather patterns drastically changing. The big issue is of course food security and changing weather patterns are going to decimate some crops and result in widespread famines.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  A simple example...people (in the West) can't change their diet and lifestyle for their own well being, what are the odds they'll change (e.g., less factory farmed animal proteins) for the good of others and the planet?

concordDance 3y ago

> the only option for stopping climate change is to reduce CO2 emissions completely. This is false on two counts: 1. The already released CO2 is going to happily keep warming the world for the next century even if we stop now. 2.geoengineering via sunshades or particulates would reduce warming.

mandmandam 3y ago
I think you can assume OP meant 'no good options', rather than 'literally no options'. 1. 'Warming' is better then 'incinerating'. Stopping now is better than stopping later. 2. What else would it do? I can't help but feel "pump even more shit into the atmosphere" isn't a wise solution for all the shit in our atmosphere.
- concordDance 3y ago
  Wild idea for2: Moon base -> rail gun sunshades to L1 point
tsimionescu 3y ago
For 1, that can be a problem for when we're done accelerating things. For 2, those aren't real options, given the externalities.
- concordDance 3y ago
  The statement was literally untrue, merely stopping CO2 emissions is insufficient. Also, the viability of geoengineering is very much up for debate.
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    If we stopped all emissions, global warming would be capped at a certain level - basically, at a certain level of CO2 in the atmosphere you have a certain world temperature. Warming doesn't continue endlessly just because there are greenhouse gases in the atmosphere - an equilibrium is reached, at a higher temperature than the previous equilibrium with less CO2.