2 ms·
It's not just expensive. It's solving the wrong problem. You can't capture CO2 unless we have vast amounts of carbon free energy. If we have vast amounts of ca
by jfengel 3y ago
It's not just expensive. It's solving the wrong problem.
You can't capture CO2 unless we have vast amounts of carbon free energy. If we have vast amounts of carbon free energy, we'll stop adding CO2. At which point the problem stops getting worse and (very gradually) improves on its own.
If the problem has gotten to the point where the amount of CO2 is itself a danger, it means we're still adding CO2 to the atmosphere, and sequestering CO2 just isn't an option.
So this is considering a scenario that isn't just expensive, but effectively impossible. And worrying about "things we might do some day" misses the fact that we need to stop using fossil fuels right now. Plotting to remove the existing carbon just isn't helpful and makes things worse.
- jonnycomputer 3y agoActually, even if we stopped putting carbon in the atmosphere immediately right now, we'd still need carbon capture to meet our targets.
- jonnycomputer 3y agoDoes someone thing this is not true?
- kiba 3y agoWe need the technology to less gradually improve our solution after going carbon zero, but going carbon zero takes the highest priority. So carbon capture should still be funded, but it would be on the backburner. I don't know what is the appropriate funding. A billion dollars per year, maybe?
- jonnycomputer 3y agoI think we are already well on our way to going to net zero wrt energy production and consumption.
- sanderjd 3y agoGood news! You've just done a good job of describing the current situation. And you're right that this is good.
- ajross 3y ago> So this is considering a scenario that isn't just expensive, but effectively impossible. Plants seem to do OK. I mean, fine, there are technical arguments to be had, but have them with details and not hyperbole. Starting from that kind of position is ridiculous when there's an existence proof all around you.
- kiba 3y agoPlants also respirate. Not to mention animals respirate. Fungus break down plants. Granted, plants do generate net Oxygen even with their requirement for respiration, but don't forget everything that depends on plants.
- ajross 3y agoRight, and I'm just saying "granted, plants do generate net oxygen" is an awfully big caveat to "You can't capture CO2 unless we have vast amounts of carbon free energy". These arguments need to happen with numbers, not blanket dismissals.
- oneshtein 3y agoExcess solar energy in summer can be stored in a synthetic fuel for use in winter, or for export to another countries.