4 ms·

CO2 removal is the least-effective solution we have for mitigating climate change. Renewables have the potential to displace fossil fuel sources through market

CO2 removal is the least-effective solution we have for mitigating climate change. Renewables have the potential to displace fossil fuel sources through market forces by eventually becoming cheaper. Demand reduction via taxes and requiring energy-efficient products can be effective for the same reasons. But there's no way to fit CO2 removal into the economy in the same way. Nobody wants to pay for CO2 removal, and we'll be relying on government agencies to coordinate, fund, and verify the process. It's always going to be prone to corruption, fraud, and mismanagement. So I'm not surprised that everyone is behind on CO2 removal.

m4x 2y ago
Do you think we can avoid multiple-degree temperature increases with the amount of CO2 (and equivalents) in the atmosphere already? If not, how do we mitigate those increases without CDR?
- silverquiet 2y ago
  > Do you think we can avoid multiple-degree temperature increases with the amount of CO2 (and equivalents) in the atmosphere already? If we ceased all economic activity today, then probably, but I assume you'd have to nuke most of the population or something equally catastrophic. > If not, how do we mitigate those increases without CDR? The half-assed approach (which I assume we'll take), is solar radiation management.
- mikestew 2y ago
  If not, how do we mitigate those increases without CDR? Maybe we don't, and the magical CDR unicorn isn't going to come and save us. I don't mean to speak for parent, but CDR is the "least effective way", yet many are speaking as if it's the most viable solution. And maybe it is, because $DEITY forbid that a dollar of CO2-producing profit be left on the table, but if that's the case then we are most certainly doomed.
staunton 2y ago
> It's always going to be prone to corruption, fraud, and mismanagement. A lot of things get done despite corruption, fraud and mismanagement. As soon as people decide to actually do something about it, it will be done. The amount of investment required is significantly less than what a world war cost, for example. A lot of people thought such a war was impossible because nobody could (or at least would) afford it but here we are. The main question is how much pain it's going to take to push people into action, and how much additional pain will be no longer avoidable by then. Looks like it's going to be a lot but humanity will survive.
partiallypro 2y ago
I think we should still fund it, but it's probably a huge boondoggle. The issue is more that by placing so much emphasis on carbon capture, we are ignoring things that work. So, it is similar to plastic recycling. Some plastics can be recycled, and at the very least they don't always end up in a landfill...but the whole idea of recycling lets a bunch of companies responsible for the big mess off the hook. Carbon capture, and carbon offsets all do this. That's my main issue with it.

m4x 2y ago

Do you think we can avoid multiple-degree temperature increases with the amount of CO2 (and equivalents) in the atmosphere already? If not, how do we mitigate those increases without CDR?

silverquiet 2y ago
> Do you think we can avoid multiple-degree temperature increases with the amount of CO2 (and equivalents) in the atmosphere already? If we ceased all economic activity today, then probably, but I assume you'd have to nuke most of the population or something equally catastrophic. > If not, how do we mitigate those increases without CDR? The half-assed approach (which I assume we'll take), is solar radiation management.
mikestew 2y ago
If not, how do we mitigate those increases without CDR? Maybe we don't, and the magical CDR unicorn isn't going to come and save us. I don't mean to speak for parent, but CDR is the "least effective way", yet many are speaking as if it's the most viable solution. And maybe it is, because $DEITY forbid that a dollar of CO2-producing profit be left on the table, but if that's the case then we are most certainly doomed.

staunton 2y ago

> It's always going to be prone to corruption, fraud, and mismanagement. A lot of things get done despite corruption, fraud and mismanagement. As soon as people decide to actually do something about it, it will be done. The amount of investment required is significantly less than what a world war cost, for example. A lot of people thought such a war was impossible because nobody could (or at least would) afford it but here we are. The main question is how much pain it's going to take to push people into action, and how much additional pain will be no longer avoidable by then. Looks like it's going to be a lot but humanity will survive.

partiallypro 2y ago

I think we should still fund it, but it's probably a huge boondoggle. The issue is more that by placing so much emphasis on carbon capture, we are ignoring things that work. So, it is similar to plastic recycling. Some plastics can be recycled, and at the very least they don't always end up in a landfill...but the whole idea of recycling lets a bunch of companies responsible for the big mess off the hook. Carbon capture, and carbon offsets all do this. That's my main issue with it.