4 ms·

The most efficient way to take carbon out of the air is not put it there in the first place. The energy required to affect a significant amount of the atmospher

by gary_0 3y ago

The most efficient way to take carbon out of the air is not put it there in the first place. The energy required to affect a significant amount of the atmosphere (5.148×10^18 kg of air, 0.04% of which is CO2), not to mention build out whatever infrastructure would be needed to even begin, would be better spent at the source of the problem (burning fossil fuel for energy). And it's doubly nonsensical if you end up emitting carbon as part of the process to capture carbon. Last year we put 36.8 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere, and this year we've put out even more. That's the main number we should be concerned with lowering. Why even think about baling out water when the leak keeps getting bigger and bigger? Plug the leak first!

kolinko 3y ago
One doesn’t exclude the other. Stop emitting carbon where it’s effective, and capture the rest. Unlike pollution, with co2 it’s ok to emit it as long as you capture it at the same time anywhere else on the planet. And yes, in many places it is cheaper to just not emit, but in many other we may never get to that (heating in colder climates without nuclear, agriculture, air travel, to some extent cement industry)
- gary_0 3y ago
  It is indeed a question of "either/or". Any capture solution that made a difference (on a gigaton scale) would require a massive industrial effort, and those limited resources should first tackle implementing renewables and electrification (for which there are many thought-out, actionable plans, not to mention burgeoning profitable industries, unlike carbon capture). The idea of continuing to burn carbon and then creating an entirely new industry to recapture that burned carbon on a massive scale is... kind of obviously something that only benefits the fossil fuel industry. And it doesn't even work, because most of our industrial activity still emits even more carbon. Emitting carbon in the process of capturing carbon is ridiculous; we need to fix the emissions problem first because doing anything else makes the problem worse.
hackeraccount 3y ago
"The most efficient way to take carbon out of the air is not put it there in the first place." Is that even true? I mean, if I make million dollars from whatever I'm doing that produces a ton of CO2 in the air and it costs 100,000 to sequester a ton of C02 then it's more efficient to put the CO2 in the air and then take it out right?

by gary_0 3y ago

kolinko 3y ago

One doesn’t exclude the other. Stop emitting carbon where it’s effective, and capture the rest. Unlike pollution, with co2 it’s ok to emit it as long as you capture it at the same time anywhere else on the planet. And yes, in many places it is cheaper to just not emit, but in many other we may never get to that (heating in colder climates without nuclear, agriculture, air travel, to some extent cement industry)

gary_0 3y ago
It is indeed a question of "either/or". Any capture solution that made a difference (on a gigaton scale) would require a massive industrial effort, and those limited resources should first tackle implementing renewables and electrification (for which there are many thought-out, actionable plans, not to mention burgeoning profitable industries, unlike carbon capture). The idea of continuing to burn carbon and then creating an entirely new industry to recapture that burned carbon on a massive scale is... kind of obviously something that only benefits the fossil fuel industry. And it doesn't even work, because most of our industrial activity still emits even more carbon. Emitting carbon in the process of capturing carbon is ridiculous; we need to fix the emissions problem first because doing anything else makes the problem worse.

hackeraccount 3y ago

"The most efficient way to take carbon out of the air is not put it there in the first place." Is that even true? I mean, if I make million dollars from whatever I'm doing that produces a ton of CO2 in the air and it costs 100,000 to sequester a ton of C02 then it's more efficient to put the CO2 in the air and then take it out right?