4 ms·

I’m fully onboard for net zero but: > What's sidestepped is the band aid temporary nature (with side effects) of continuously emmitting sulfur and the fundemen

I’m fully onboard for net zero but: > What's sidestepped is the band aid temporary nature (with side effects) of continuously emmitting sulfur and the fundementally not even break even state of CO2 sequestration That is completely untrue and the usual disingenuous "let’s never talk about capture and geo engineering less it distracts from our goal of reforming the world from morally impure practice" served by the traditional aler-mondialists/ecologists. The fact is, even if we reach net zero in 2050 - which is unlikely - the amount of GHC in the atmosphere will be quite high and the capacity of the ocean to absorb some which we are relying upon is far from infinite and might be slowing down. We need capture. We won’t fix the issue without. And to do that we need time which geoengineering could give us. Regarding the emission of capture projects, I am assuming you are using the traditional accounting trick ecologists use when they want to discredit something: you count the full estimation of emission during construction with no amortisation using a broad accounting scope for companies involved, use the average worldwide emission for a watt discounting the actual source of energy used, and associate GHC to water use?

defrost 2y ago
> That is completely untrue and the usual disingenuous "let’s never talk about capture and geo engineering less it distracts from our goal of reforming the world from morally impure practice" served by the traditional aler-mondialists/ecologists. Respectfully. Bollocks. It is absolutely demonstrably true that the article linked here sidesteps how sulfur emmissions are a band aid solution requiring constant topping up that fail to address underlying issues. It is absolutely demonstrably true that the largest CO2 sequestration project on the planet hasn't yet met it's own goals and when and if it does the amounts stashed below will be tiny in comparison to the amount released. > traditional aler-mondialists/ecologists. Yeah, you might want to work on that, I'm retired from a career in global exploration geophysics for transnational energy and mineral resource concerns .. that's a full antipodean faceplant of an over reach there. > I am assuming You're incorrect. > you count the full estimation of emission during construction Nope.
- RandomThoughts3 2y ago
  > It is absolutely demonstrably true that the article linked here sidesteps how sulfur emmissions are a band aid solution requiring constant topping up that fail to address underlying issues. No one denies that. That never was the point. The issue is that the reality is that unless somehow a miracle happens we are not going to reach net zero in time to avoid major issues, key point being "in time". We need more time. > It is absolutely demonstrably true that the largest CO2 sequestration project on the planet hasn't yet met it's own goals and when and if it does the amounts stashed below will be tiny in comparison to the amount released. Patently untrue. And even if it was true (which it isn’t to be clear), we need advance in sequestration. That’s a prerequisite to net zero working. We might get away with what the ocean will absorb if we reach net zero quickly but: one, that’s not going to happen, two, there is good reason to think the ocean sinking ability will slow down. Also well done on cleverly sidestepping the part on accounting tricks which you know to be fully true.
- PeterHolzwarth 2y ago
  > Respectfully. Bollocks. No. You get one or the other, not both. Angry partisan fighting is why topics like these get stripped from the front page within minutes of showing up.
  - defrost 2y ago
    I'm not angry, I'm Australian and that's an extremely amused response without a wit of anger to a vapid comment that rolled in on a fog of barely baked assumptions. I have no preconceptions re: the other party (although they clearly had a picture of who I was and where I was coming from), I merely responded to the factual basis of what was said .. which was largely, as we say here, bollocks. As for > why topics like these get stripped from the front page within minutes of showing up. that had already long happened by the time I came back to look at the responses to my hot take on the article .. a Saudi funded media outlet riding on the back of recent reports of AMOC instability to wedge in a "fossil fuels are still great" message under the guise of climate concern.
piva00 2y ago
> The fact is, even if we reach net zero in 2050 - which is unlikely - the amount of GHC in the atmosphere will be quite high and the capacity of the ocean to absorb some which we are relying upon is far from infinite and might be slowing down. We need capture. We won’t fix the issue without. And to do that we need time which geoengineering could give us. The amount of energy required to recapture the emitted CO2 is mind-boggling though. Reducing it in terms of thermodynamics give a better overlook on how absurd the amount of energy would be required to revert CO2 into some other stable form that can be buried somewhere, as much as I'd love some magical technology enabling that we simply do not have the tech, we do not have the abundance of energy to capture even 1% of the CO2 emitted in a year. If we went full sci-fi with dependable fusion reactors providing as clean and cheap energy as possible we would still need many, many reactors tasked with just providing energy to capture CO2.
- Yizahi 2y ago
  That is precisely the reason to invest a lot in the snake oil and sham direct air/sea capture of CO2. Because to solve such insane infrastructure problem we need centuries. If we start today (I mean start seriously), then by 2300 we may have some working and scalable tech and can finally start (only start!) getting towards so called "net zero". If we will start in 2300, then we'll get it working in 2500. Dates are an example, but the principle will hold with any range. And without CO2 capture from air or sea will will only increase global heating for centuries in the future.

defrost 2y ago

> That is completely untrue and the usual disingenuous "let’s never talk about capture and geo engineering less it distracts from our goal of reforming the world from morally impure practice" served by the traditional aler-mondialists/ecologists. Respectfully. Bollocks. It is absolutely demonstrably true that the article linked here sidesteps how sulfur emmissions are a band aid solution requiring constant topping up that fail to address underlying issues. It is absolutely demonstrably true that the largest CO2 sequestration project on the planet hasn't yet met it's own goals and when and if it does the amounts stashed below will be tiny in comparison to the amount released. > traditional aler-mondialists/ecologists. Yeah, you might want to work on that, I'm retired from a career in global exploration geophysics for transnational energy and mineral resource concerns .. that's a full antipodean faceplant of an over reach there. > I am assuming You're incorrect. > you count the full estimation of emission during construction Nope.

RandomThoughts3 2y ago
> It is absolutely demonstrably true that the article linked here sidesteps how sulfur emmissions are a band aid solution requiring constant topping up that fail to address underlying issues. No one denies that. That never was the point. The issue is that the reality is that unless somehow a miracle happens we are not going to reach net zero in time to avoid major issues, key point being "in time". We need more time. > It is absolutely demonstrably true that the largest CO2 sequestration project on the planet hasn't yet met it's own goals and when and if it does the amounts stashed below will be tiny in comparison to the amount released. Patently untrue. And even if it was true (which it isn’t to be clear), we need advance in sequestration. That’s a prerequisite to net zero working. We might get away with what the ocean will absorb if we reach net zero quickly but: one, that’s not going to happen, two, there is good reason to think the ocean sinking ability will slow down. Also well done on cleverly sidestepping the part on accounting tricks which you know to be fully true.
PeterHolzwarth 2y ago
> Respectfully. Bollocks. No. You get one or the other, not both. Angry partisan fighting is why topics like these get stripped from the front page within minutes of showing up.
- defrost 2y ago
  I'm not angry, I'm Australian and that's an extremely amused response without a wit of anger to a vapid comment that rolled in on a fog of barely baked assumptions. I have no preconceptions re: the other party (although they clearly had a picture of who I was and where I was coming from), I merely responded to the factual basis of what was said .. which was largely, as we say here, bollocks. As for > why topics like these get stripped from the front page within minutes of showing up. that had already long happened by the time I came back to look at the responses to my hot take on the article .. a Saudi funded media outlet riding on the back of recent reports of AMOC instability to wedge in a "fossil fuels are still great" message under the guise of climate concern.

piva00 2y ago

> The fact is, even if we reach net zero in 2050 - which is unlikely - the amount of GHC in the atmosphere will be quite high and the capacity of the ocean to absorb some which we are relying upon is far from infinite and might be slowing down. We need capture. We won’t fix the issue without. And to do that we need time which geoengineering could give us. The amount of energy required to recapture the emitted CO2 is mind-boggling though. Reducing it in terms of thermodynamics give a better overlook on how absurd the amount of energy would be required to revert CO2 into some other stable form that can be buried somewhere, as much as I'd love some magical technology enabling that we simply do not have the tech, we do not have the abundance of energy to capture even 1% of the CO2 emitted in a year. If we went full sci-fi with dependable fusion reactors providing as clean and cheap energy as possible we would still need many, many reactors tasked with just providing energy to capture CO2.

Yizahi 2y ago
That is precisely the reason to invest a lot in the snake oil and sham direct air/sea capture of CO2. Because to solve such insane infrastructure problem we need centuries. If we start today (I mean start seriously), then by 2300 we may have some working and scalable tech and can finally start (only start!) getting towards so called "net zero". If we will start in 2300, then we'll get it working in 2500. Dates are an example, but the principle will hold with any range. And without CO2 capture from air or sea will will only increase global heating for centuries in the future.