The US just invested more than $1 billion into carbon removal / The move represents a big step in the effort to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere—and slow down climate change.::undefined
Everyone here is mad that we’re doing this as if this is the only thing we’re doing. This… nor any of the other things suggested here… are either/or strategies. They’re all AND strategies.
People just wanna bitch.
Celebrate everything that is done to help slow down climate change and encourage more.
The problem is, that this technology is already being used to greenwash fossil fuels. There’s a gas power plant currently running that got subsidies and good press for building a CCS facility next to the power plant. Something like 1% of the emissions were actually sequestered, but millions were wasted.
If these subsidies are actually tied to reasonable requirements, I’m all in. History shows, though, that this is usually not the case.
It’s a technological antisolution.
This is honestly probably more of a transition jobs program for oil workers and something designed to get a few extra votes in Congress. One of the projects is in my state (Louisiana) and the politicians all stressed how it’s creating jobs in the oil producing Southwest part of the state. And the other project is in East Texas. The companies even pinky swore that at least 10% of their workforce would be former oil workers.
Wasn’t carbon removal an unproven concept? I feel like I watched Climate Town discuss it in one episode, talking about it never actually hitting any meaningful % thresholds…
Just Google CO2 Removal Unproven and scroll past the fossil fuel sponsored articles on top to see multiple reputable sources treating it as basically a tech scam.
Of course it’s a scam, we have millions of polluting sources a few CO2 removal sites could never counter act that. Sure it helps but it is a band aid on a gunshot wound.
I’m on my phone so it’s tricky too properly cite these sources but some back of the napkin math:
Global annual CO2 production is about 37 billion metric tons. About 27% of that by weight is just carbon. That’s like 10 billion metric tons in just the carbon part of what is being put into the atmosphere each year by people.
The global annual production of cement, one of the most used construction materials in human history, is estimated to be about 4 billion metric tons.
If you had a magic machine that could pull carbon out of the air, remove the oxygen from it, store it in a pure form, you would have to now find some place to store two and a half times the mass of all the cement the world produces each year.
That would be just a break even on carbon. The energy costs for any kind of real life machine or infrastructure to do that would necessarily be extraordinary.
If this device was powered by magically consuming thermal energy from the area around it, the heat demands would change the climate faster than the carbon being pulled out of the air.
My point is, we make just produce too much carbon. Way way way too much.
Awesome. But we need more effort to clean up our oceans and reduce the waste and plastic pumped into them by mega corporations.
That is a completely different problem
The ocean also absorbs CO2 and produces half of our oxygen. Pollution is fucking that up.
We don’t save the ocean, we don’t get to breathe.
From an industry standpoint everything the article says at the end as a critique is correct. We should be playing moneyball, those fans that draw in the particles would be an additional toll on the power grid.
Instead spend the money on removing the emission sources and modernizing our grid/reducing fuel emissions. After weve exhausted low hanging fruit there we’ll have to throw money at offset tech.
I suppose we’ll have to get the tech made eventually but there’s just so much to be reworked on our grids as is.
We’re past the reducing emissions stage.
We need to BOTH cut emissions, and find a way to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere to get to a healthy planet. Not all the CO2 traps are going to be the right way to do it, but we need to research and figure out how to sustainably pull CO2 out, stop methane emissions, switch to a carbon free grid, and… everything else.
We are not beyond the emissions reduction stage and will not be until the grid is 100% renewable or other emissions free energy powered.
Switching to clean energy is emissions reduction. Imo should be our #1 priority because we’re not reducing power demand without massive societal change.
They rather should’ve planted a bunch of trees
Amen, only angle I can see someone disagreeing with is trees becoming a potential bank of carbon to be fed back into the atmosphere via fuel for wildfires.
I so wish there were better ways to control forest fires.
Forest fires do contribute to CO2 emissions, but naturally occurring forest fires are part of the carbon sequestration cycle. The ash, and charcoal leftover from forest fires trap carbon and provide for nutrients for the next forest.
It’s not great to have half a continent burn at once, but regular, controlled fires are a net sink for carbon.
Agreed! I was just mentioning the only negative angle I could see, still a net positive!
But even if they do die, if you always make sure to have enough trees alive, it’ll be a net zero.
Also, I’m wondering that no company has started investigating to bury trees into abandoned coal mines yet. Like, take one, give back one for using a few hundred thousand years later.
How would a company make money by dumping trees in holes?
It should be a government effort to do something like this. At least planting trees, no need to cut them for decades anyway. We would need an insane amount of tress for that to work too, basically as many as we burned as oil since the industrial era…
There’s this concept of CO2 trading in europe. Basically a very dirty compania buys certificates from cleaner ones (or CO2 negative companies, like that hypothetical tree burying company). These allow dirtycorp. to pollute the air, while giving clean Inc. the ability and the monetary resources to pull CO2 from the air.
Interesting! In Canada we have a carbon tax, which incentivize companies to pollute less, but does not help companies that are carbon-negative. I like the european way better; but as I stated, it requires governments to manage this, as these certificates are a fictous constraint anyway.
Or moss. Moss is betterThat’s not what that article says. At all.
As mentioned in the article, moss is pretty good at pulling particulates out of the air and “cleaning” it in that sense.
But trying to get CO2 out of the air isn’t the same. Trees are very effective at this because they have a lot of mass and density and are largely carbon themselves. When we talk about “carbon sequestering”, we’re generally talking things like trees because that carbon from the air has to go somewhere and having a huge dense chunk of carbon is basically the most efficient natural method.
Moss is good at removing other particles, but trees are generally still better at carbon sequestering and CO2 removal.
Semi related: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/187327/how-plants-carbon-affects-their-response/
TL;DR - if you want to suck up a lot of CO2, you basically want a massive plant. Moss isn’t one of them.
My bad, sorry and thanks for correcting me
Worked for the Titanic!
deleted by creator
