3 ms·

> Mammoth will be able to capture nearly 10 times as much CO2 as Orca once it’s fully operational, around 36,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year. That’s still not

> Mammoth will be able to capture nearly 10 times as much CO2 as Orca once it’s fully operational, around 36,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year. That’s still not a lot of carbon, considering Microsoft alone emitted close to 13 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2022. Yes, the math doesn't work at all for this. It's a fantasy, an excuse to avoid painful change that would actually work.

bennyhill 2y ago
Probably worthless as a solution, but it seems to me like a good quantitative tool to start fining at a realistic cost. I.e. VWs fines for emissions falsifications were at best based on first estimating with fantasy offset costs instead of a hypothetical build out cost.
asadotzler 2y ago
The math works out just fine. We have the available land and the technology and it's only a matter of cost. If we price carbon pollution properly, with more and larger taxes, the corporations producing most of the CO2 pollution will gladly pay slightly than the taxes less to clean it up. So, it's only a matter of working backwards from the cost of these machines and their deployment at scale to figure out what the carbon taxes should be and aligning those. Phase in the new taxes as we built out the capture systems and then when we've got scale and weaned ourselves off of the worst carbon polluters, we can lower the taxes to maintenance levels. Not doing this is pitiful, but as long as people like you keep saying the math doesn't work and using that ignorance as an excuse to not do the one thing that must happen, legislate real carbon taxes, it obviously won't happen. We have the technology, we lack the political will. That will be the end of humans and much other life on Earth I fear.
- tuatoru 2y ago
  What works is enhanced weathering of olivine minerals. Even powered by coal (for the powder mills) and diesel (for the mining and sea operations).

bennyhill 2y ago

Probably worthless as a solution, but it seems to me like a good quantitative tool to start fining at a realistic cost. I.e. VWs fines for emissions falsifications were at best based on first estimating with fantasy offset costs instead of a hypothetical build out cost.

asadotzler 2y ago

The math works out just fine. We have the available land and the technology and it's only a matter of cost. If we price carbon pollution properly, with more and larger taxes, the corporations producing most of the CO2 pollution will gladly pay slightly than the taxes less to clean it up. So, it's only a matter of working backwards from the cost of these machines and their deployment at scale to figure out what the carbon taxes should be and aligning those. Phase in the new taxes as we built out the capture systems and then when we've got scale and weaned ourselves off of the worst carbon polluters, we can lower the taxes to maintenance levels. Not doing this is pitiful, but as long as people like you keep saying the math doesn't work and using that ignorance as an excuse to not do the one thing that must happen, legislate real carbon taxes, it obviously won't happen. We have the technology, we lack the political will. That will be the end of humans and much other life on Earth I fear.

tuatoru 2y ago
What works is enhanced weathering of olivine minerals. Even powered by coal (for the powder mills) and diesel (for the mining and sea operations).