3 ms·
> "not putting carbon into the atmosphere" != "removing carbon from the atmosphere" That’s not what they claim. Their claim is that the effect on global warmin
by Someone 3y ago
> "not putting carbon into the atmosphere" != "removing carbon from the atmosphere"
That’s not what they claim. Their claim is that the effect on global warming of creating X fewer contrails equals that of putting Y amount of CO2 less into the atmosphere (our main concern isn’t having so much CO2 in the atmosphere, it’s its effect on temperatures)
Unfortunately they also produce Z amount of extra CO2 and don’t know yet whether the effects of X compensate for Y and Z combined.
- DaveSchmindel 3y agoI may be wrong, but I think user 22c may be trying to point out that we put an amount, W, of CO2 into the air by making the collective decision to fly so many planes in the first place.
- 22c 3y agoMore specifically I was talking about equating contrail reduction with removing carbon from the atmosphere, which the article does when it says > Marc Shapiro, the head of contrails at Breakthrough Energy, calls reducing contrails [...] the equivalent of removing carbon from the atmosphere at a cost of 10 dollars per ton or less Contrail reduction and carbon sequestration aren't the same thing and it's not fair to equate them on cost.