What’s dangerous is attacking any idea that attempts to manage climate risks in light of humanity’s continuing use of carbon fuels.
The anthropocene is as it is, not as it should be. Emissions reduction, carbon removal, and solar radiation management are all important tools in managing the world we’ve made.
The sooner our cultural narrative expands to accept consequential responsibility, the better.
Any investment in carbon removal could be invested instead in ways that prevent carbon emissions in the first place (renewable, EV...). All the CO2 emitted today (even if removed later) will increasingly contribute to climate change due to the many and enormous positive feedback loops[0] at play (esp. thawing permafrost).
Why not save as much CO2 as possible now and, when we can't do more (e.g long-term shortage of batteries), fully invest in carbon removal programs?
> Why not save as much CO2 as possible now and, when we can't do more (e.g long-term shortage of batteries), fully invest in carbon removal programs?
Because carbon removal tech at scale needs to be ready at that point, and it won't be if it doesn't get investment now. I agree it shouldn't get as much attention as displacing carbon sources, but it still needs research investment.
>Removal and reductions are not mutually exclusive.
Economically, they are. Carbon removal technologies do not prevent the emissions of CO2 (their production actually emits CO2), but reducing emissions cancels the need to remove emissions future emissions.
Budgets are limited so any investment in future carbon removal is not used to stop today's emission. Also, climate change isn't the only catastrophe we must avoid (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_collapse) so our efforts and resources are definitely limited.
I think the bigger reason is that CO2 sequestration is more compatible with human psychology. It reminds me of a study that looks at three ways to convince homeowners to conserve energy (sorry, this is from memory, I can't remember the actual study):
Method 1: educate them about how much money they will save.
-Result: Little to no effect on consumption
Method 2: educate them about how much better it is for the environment
-Result: Little to no effect on consumption
Method 3: inform them that a majority of their neighbors are conserving energy
-Result: A significant reduction in consumption
Now that doesn't seem particularly rational to me, until you frame it as most people are simultaneously selfish and also social creatures. But that framework helps understand why carbon removal gets more coverage than conservation.
I don't understand the opposition of carbon capture. Carbon in the environment seems like a technical problem with a technical solution. What's the alternative? Try to convince every nation in the world to make their citizens poorer by forcing them to adopt more expensive energy sources and eventually forcibly limit population growth? Even the most lofty treaties and proposals admit to not being enough, so why do we persist with chasing ever more draconian controls over what people can do?
To me carbon removal is just a PR tool by interested parties who don’t want to reduce emissions. I haven’t seen any approach that even remotely can be scaled to a level where it would make a difference. I think it’s a distraction that’s designed to prevent meaningful action. Pretty much the same as the fast food industry sponsoring health education initiatives that tell people junk food is ok.
To me, critics of carbon removal are engaging in their own agenda as well. Usually they advocate for the abolishment of individual transport, deindustrialisation and lower standards of living. Since those will only be had if there was no alternative, every technique that lets us have our current standard of living is criticized out of hand as non-viable. Only abstinence and discipline for us CO₂-sinners!
A similar argument could have been made for solar power in the 1980s - just a PR tool distracting from the only economically viable energy choices of nuclear or oil.
But we have cheap and viable solar energy today because of decades of work to make it economically viable. So tarring carbon removal or any other technology that could feasibly improve or stabilize a damaged climate could be strangling future pillars of climate response.
I am not against research. Research as much as possible. Maybe something will show up. But it should not be viewed as a short term alternative to cutting emissions.
I am just worried that some industries are using carbon capture as a delay tactic. Reminds me a little if “clean coal” they pushed some years ago.
Renewables are not more expensive. They are a lot cheaper if you account for the externalities.
A carbon price, with border adjustments for im- and exports would be an effective way to let the invisible hand convince every nation to become net neutral.
> They are a lot cheaper if you account for the externalities.
You also need to account for grid scale energy storage to deploy renewables at any meaningful capacity. Unfortunately we still don’t have a cost-effective solution that works at grid scale. Batteries don’t last long enough.
Power2Gas works at grid scale, but I agree that it's cost should come down a bit more. Right now it's cheaper to shape the demand side in most countries than to invest into storage.
However, I am also taking into account about 200€/ton CO2.
You also have to consider round trip efficiency. Anything less than 75% is probably a non-starter. Lithium Ion approaches 93% but still has a very high cost of ownership.
Well yeah, poor round trip efficiencies are an important part of what makes power2gas expensive. I find it unlikely that we'll have enough batteries to cover cold, dark winters, so I assume that we'll won't get around power2gas completely. The infrastructure to store large amounts of gas is already built, so that is nice.
That will be one of the changes. Humans do not require instant gratification. It’s a luxury. We will be forced to give it up when it becomes unaffordable.
>Carbon in the environment seems like a technical problem
Is it? The problem isn't that there's carbon in the atmosphere but we keeping adding more even though it's making it inhabitable.
Is too much alcohol in my blood a technical problem or a drinking problem. Someone drunk should stop drinking alcohol in the first place (admit that's a behavior of behavior) instead of finding ways to remove alcohol from their system.
Part of the problem there is that if removing alcohol from their system were cheap and easy, they'd probably do it, even if it was still damaging their body, and that'd be their choice for their body. The big difference is that climate change doesn't just harm the persons causing it, it harms literally everyone on the planet and a lotta those folks have zero say in it.
> Someone drunk should stop drinking alcohol in the first place
but if removing alcohol is possible (and cheap), and the person _wants_ to be drunk, then they should be allowed to do so. Rather than saying that one should reduce their alcohol intake.
Just like carbon removal, removing alcohol from blood is much more difficult (and/or expensive) than to stop drinking.
It's an addiction so maybe we should stop selling alcohol to drunk people who can't help but put their life at risk. If your drunk friends says "but I'll find a way to get sober", we can agree to help them with that once they stop drinking.
Also, wrt to climate change: people won't want carbon but energy and we have an alternative to fossil fuels so replace them with renewable sources as much as possible and once we've done our best, finally talk about all the CO2 we failed to save. It's all about priorities because of the time carbon remains in the atmosphere and the feedback loops at play.
> Just like carbon removal, removing alcohol from blood is much more difficult (and/or expensive) than to stop drinking
How do you figure? I can't foresee a world in which a human being's life is carbon neutral. So if we have an exponentially growing global population, how does carbon reduction not eventually lead to population control?
That are projections with a very unclear reasoning. It is thought that most of the world will follow Europe in population decline, but even North America isn't there yet. And if the reason is something temporary, like current western culture, then it will vanish at some point, leading to more exponential growth again.
The reason is that middle class life is insanely expensive, while poverty is by necessity not.
If you’re living in poverty, a kid doesn’t impact your socioeconomic status in such a profound way, and in rural places they can be an economic benefit.
For many middle class people a single child would drive them into poverty.
Carbon removal will eventually be necessary to reach carbon neutrality. We're very very far from the point where it's more economical to invest in carbon removal than to lower emissions.
> We're very very far from the point where it's more economical to invest in carbon removal than to lower emissions.
depends on what you mean by lower emissions.
Transitioning to more renewable sources is certainly a good way to invest resources, but it's not mutually exclusive to also consider carbon capture.
What is _not_ possible is for people to reduce their consumption. I, and many others, will not be willingly sacrificing the high quality of life that is the result of using a lot of energy. If people expect that climate change is to be solved by having everyone reduce their consumption, then that train of thought is doomed to fail.
By "lower emissions" I mean investing money into energy sources that don't emit CO2, into better insulation for houses, into low carbon modes of transport. This will naturally lead to less energy use, because thermal power plants are not very efficient, burning oil for heat is not very efficient (compared to a heat pump), and burning oil to move a car is not very efficient (compared to a BEV, or a train). Doing something about emissions from agriculture is a bit more difficult. Perhaps that's an area where we'll need carbon capture to reach neutrality.
I do not mean moving back to a pre-industrial lifestyle.
When it comes to the fossil fuel companies, my objection to their carbon capture is manifold.
Clean coal has always been a sham, so I don't have faith in their schemes for scrubbing carbon. These companies have shown no real appetite for actually fixing the problems they created, and a near infinite appetite for juking the stats.
As an example, they always block any semi-reasonable economic systems for carbon taxation and pricing externalities which would be extremely effective at fixing the problem from a consumer demand perspective and pricing in mitigations for petroleum use.
Their sequestration seems largely about pumping CO2 into the ground. I'm not a geologist, and I can't speak to how effective that is at keeping gas from leaking back to the surface, but stories about fracking ruining the water in large areas due to _gasses_ coming up from the ground don't give me faith. Maybe the strategy is to shove enough CO2 around mineral strata like olivine that eventually absorb it but the entire process sounds like it is rife for abuse: oil company SAYS it shoved it down there, SAYS it will stay there, just to get whatever capture credit. Do they actually care if their carbon gets in the air? Historically the answer is absolutely not.
And the article is right, bad science reporting in the press will misrepresent the problems and solutions, like they have for, oh, since the press has ever existed for science in general and 70 years specifically for oil/gas/global warming/the environment.
Nations DON'T have to be poorer. Alternative energy is cheaper than coal, and last I checked was on even par with natural gas turbine, and soon new alternative energy will be cheaper than already-installed gas plants, an important milestone that means the electric companies will actively try to shutter since replacing them saves them money.
The BEV will drop under ICE drivetrain cost very very soon. It probably has already, but the design cycle of cars using those technologies is probably on a 2-5 year delay from showing up in the marketplace.
So the third world's transportation and energy infrastructure will be largely decarbonized. I think that's about 50-60% of emissions in the emissions pile.
Your argument seems to boil down to "make solving the problem by means other than carbon capture seem impossible or repressive". I disagree.
Can carbon capture ever be cheaper than not emitting the carbon in the first place? That's the critical question.
Also, if the companies and countries profiting from carbon extraction from the ground aren't the ones paying for it to be extracted from the atmosphere, you've got a massive transfer of wealth happening there. Should the US be paying for the Saudi royal family to get richer?
Most nations won't bother lowering their emissions. So the question is not whether CCS is cheaper than not emitting, the question is whether CCS is cheaper than taking action to force the issue. Which would include abandoning several international treaties like the WTO, air traffic agreements, maybe impose sanctions and even go to war.
If climate change is a sufficiently important issue, then hell yes, the US should be paying for CCS, even if that means that the Saudi royal family can afford a few more solid-gold-airplanes. If the issue isn't that important, than why bother at all?
>Most nations won't bother lowering their emissions.
Why? We can switch to EV (this cuts emissions by 6 https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/transport/vehic...) and to renewables (another factor for EV, but also households and the whole industrial sector). We can also significantly reduce meat consumption (the easiest and least expensive change).
Personally, I've halves my emissions in 2 years (no flights, no car, vegetarianism, etc) so I don't understand the fatalism. Sure some may reject changes but it's much easier to do than many expect. If one can/will change, others can/will to.
Because EVs are quite expensive and need lots of infrastructure. We basically have to double our electricity production when we are still struggling to just get the current load without EVs on renewables. We need to upgrade our power grid with more carrying capacity and more storage, which is neither cheap nor easy. And even then, that just solves cars, not transport of goods. There is a whole load of additional problems to solve there, like hydrogen production and distribution or synfuels.
This "just use EVs" alone is not viable for anything but the industrialised countries, and even there most are struggling with the cost and public support. Here in Germany, nobody wants any more windmills or power lines, yet we are only at less than one quarter of what we need overall. Meanwhile electricity is already extremely expensive over here.
Reducing meat consumption is only easy if you don't like meat or like to castigate yourself. I personally would rather see Miami sink into the ocean than not eat as much meat anymore. And I know a majority of the population thinks this way.
Now take the above and tell that to the inhabitants of an up-and-coming nation like China, Brazil, Nigeria or South Africa. They'll just laugh at you I guess. They want their piece of the cake, too.
> If climate change is a sufficiently important issue, then hell yes, the US should be paying for CCS, even if that means that the Saudi royal family can afford a few more solid-gold-airplanes. If the issue isn't that important, than why bother at all?
The paris agreement isn't really binding. There are no mechanism to punish non-compliance and the aims and means of limiting global warming are poorly defined in any case. The only real consequence of failing paris is looking bad. Boohoo. The WTO treaty however does have concrete punishments if one country disobeys, e.g. import duties may be imposed. Air traffic agreements are based on mutuality, so if you tax jet fuel, the other side will as well, at best. At worst, the other side will abandon the agreement and you cannot fly anywhere anymore, except within your own borders and international waters. So you can guess which one takes precedence if push comes to shove.
Also, the paris agreement doesn't really limit emissions beyond the industrialized countries. Most of the world isn't limited at all, or just very very generously.
And yes, the US is an obstacle. But that doesn't mean that the rest of the world will feel obliged to fulfil the paris agreement, prior agreements on this topic have never really been obeyed. I guess the US just has a culture of not entering agreements they don't intend to obey, whereas others sign and then wait&see.
And about the false dichotomy: yes, maybe. But since climate change advocacy is getting increasingly shrill (justifiably or not), e.g. by changing global warming to global heating, climate change to climate catastrophe, declaring it a danger to human survival, either the problem is overstated or a really big one. Leading to the aforementioned dichotomy.
On the other hand, I guess we would all be well-served by more objectivity and less hype.
I think it's important to consider climate restoration. Future people likely won't appreciate the climate they'll inherit, and will deserve the technologies to remediate our poor choices.
Not emitting it won't fix the fact that we have already emitted tons of it. And there's the potential feedback loop from methane release from the Arctic and Siberia, which would require active measures to stop it once it gets going (capturing greenhouse gasses or blocking light). Obviously though, you can't have CCS instead of green energy. You need surplus green energy to power it with, otherwise you're not really accomplishing anything.
There are some sources of carbon emissions that are very hard to replace. Eventually it will be cheaper to remove some carbon than to get rid of the last emitters.
It is a good tech to have, however most people see it as an easy way out "oh, we'll just scale up carbon capture and I don't have to give up my car and AC". I am highly skeptical that any remotely complicated technology can be scaled enough to counteract massive amounts of fossil fuel burned daily. We burn millions of barrels of oil every day. If you want to solve it via carbon capture, you need to extract it on a similar scale. Have you every heard anyone complaining that they extract so much carbon, they need space to store it? No. That is because we extract miniscule amounts compared to fossil fuels we burn.
For me the problem is that if you focus only on one part of the entire problem, you will never fix it. You can do carbon capturing at a NG plant, but what about all the leaks [1]? Lowering CO2 emissions, will lower all kinds of emissions, so that should be the focus.
It seems the only sector that can't be decarbonized radically are transport and agriculture, mostly because airplanes and freight transport. That leaves us about 30% of carbon emissions today[1]. According to those numbers, carbon capture is going to be needed, but nowhere with the same priority than clean energy.
A high-priority item for the environment is simply education, since voters are pushing strongly against clean energy ("wind turbines kill birds", "nuclear plants go Chernobyl", "electric cars are expensive|auto-update like Windows and brick on you|have no turbo", "batteries are worse for the environment than fossil fuels").
> simply education, since voters are pushing strongly against clean energy
This isn't a matter of education, it's a matter of duelling propaganda systems. You can't just dismiss the problems, they have to be presented in a balanced context along with solutions.
> "wind turbines kill birds"
True but needs the massive qualifier that this isn't a big impact on bird populations compared to habitat loss, domestic cats and even glass buildings.
> "nuclear plants go Chernobyl"
True? Needs the qualifier that, apart from the people in the immediate area, and farmers in Europe who had to destroy produce, the effect wasn't too bad comparatively.
> "electric cars are expensive|auto-update like Windows and brick on you"
The first is true, hence subsidies in much of the west. For high mileage they are cheaper to run. The second is true for Tesla, but I can see it being expanded even to petrol cars; something of a separate issue.
> "batteries are worse for the environment than fossil fuels").
Which parts of agriculture cannot stop using fossil fuels? As for transport, the only thing that cannot run on (hopefully green) electricity using current technology is long-haul flights, which frankly we can do without; just go back to using ships and use videoconferencing for the rest.
CO2-to-jetfuel is possible. CO2 and agriculture tends to be a matter of accounting; cows emit methane, as do a lot of decay processes. From a practical point of view farmers who are on subsidized diesel already will probably be the last to change.
Nitrogen fertilizer can be made renewably. The nonrenewability of phosphorous and potassium deposits may be more of a problem.
>It seems the only sector that can't be decarbonized radically are transport and agriculture
Agriculture can significantly be decarbonized if we stop eating meat (or radically reduce consumption)[0]. It would also significantly help with biodiversity loss, which is becoming a bigger and more pressing issue than climate change.
> A high-priority item for the environment is simply education, since voters are pushing strongly against clean energy ("wind turbines kill birds", "nuclear plants go Chernobyl", "electric cars are expensive|auto-update like Windows and brick on you|have no turbo", "batteries are worse for the environment than fossil fuels").
Lack of media representation seems like a widely under-attacked problem. Look at the number adults who say they hear about climate change in the media at least once a week, the numbers are abysmal: https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/yc...
It's not carbon emissions that are directly the problem, but rather the emission of fossil carbon into the biosphere. Hydrocarbon fuels and the like can be produced from carbon already in the biosphere.
I'm worried that legitimate schemes are being lost in this movement to declare carbon capture as a distraction. Coal companies talking about carbon sequestration, pumping their exhaust back underground, is definitely a distraction. But some of the fuel-from-air initiatives are not.
If we can use electricity to generate hydrocarbons from water and atmospheric CO2 then we can revolutionize transport without relying on batteries. Fuel made from air could be used just like any other hydrocarbon. It isn't economical yet, but that doesn't mean it is a delay tactic. Such schemes offer actual practical answers.
Yes this appears to be the only practical answer for long distance marine and air transport. We're not going to be flying battery powered airliners from New York to London.
People are talking about hydrogen-powered aircraft. For all the effort needed to compress/liquify/store hydrogen, it has to be cheaper to make diesel out of CO2+Water.
It hasn't been production scaled yet but the US Navy has been at the forefront of synthetic fuels research for years. Their objective is to reduce the logistic train for a Carrier Strike Force by using power from nuclear reactors to manufacture aviation fuel on site rather than relying on tankers.
The book "The Wizard and the Prophet" (highly recommended, by Charles Mann) argues that this is essentially a battle between faith in technology to become more efficient and the nature-preserving belief that we need to reduce our footprint.
The battle has been going on for centuries regarding the limits of population capacity, energy, water and food. We have broken many previously credible thresholds and managed to get to 11 billion people thanks to technology.
I don't think following only one or only the other strategy is something that's possible in diverse societies. We will continue to wage this battle, with technological advances bringing breakthroughs (such as the invention of fertilizers or climate-robust seeds), but with ever starker warnings from conservators.
The book helped me realize how many debates are rooted in this schism, deep down, and how fundamental it is.
I always assumed carbon capture was a hard requirement for a sustainable future, as long as there are some things that can't be run off of renewables.
Plus, even if the world dropped its co2 output to pre-industrial revolution levels, wouldn't we still have to capture carbon to reverse the damage already done? Or is there some natural process which will slowly bring co2 levels back to some equilibrium level?
CO₂ will react with certain minerals (like Olivine) over time. Also, when CO₂ is dissolved in the ocean, it will form an acid that reacts with lime. So there will be an equilibrium again, but it will take quite some time.
However, especially Olivine is also thought to be useful for the same reason as above, to be used in climate control efforts: Just mine it, crush it and spread it over a large area to cheaply capture more CO₂ more quickly, and bring that equilibrium lower and sooner: https://climatecleanup.org/olivine/
Under current circumstances, mining, crushing, and spreading over a large area all take power, which comes from fossil fuel. Can this (olivine) be done in a carbon-negative way, with all elements of the process accounted for?
Well, of course it can. You just crush a little extra for the fuel you burnt. And an astonishing lot of mining equipment is electric anyways, so just buy "green electricity" and all is good.
Just as a comparison, we do mine, crush and spread mineral-based fertilizer as a normal part of agriculture. That is of course part of the large carbon footprint of agriculture, but not a big one. So this should be doable.
The question I'm rather sceptical about is the areas where one might spread the olivine. How much land it would take, and what the conditions must be. It would be nice if one could just use that olivine instead of gravel in all the parks and on footpaths and stuff.
While the title of the article is easy enough to understand, and articulates a genuine concern, the article itself is pretty incoherent.
It does not establish clearly why carbon removal is not effective at slowing climate change, while assuming it isn't.
It critisizes as inefficient the early investing strategy to cast a wide net and give money to potentially failing ideas.
It in one place mentions that climate capture cannot "be easily scaled up" because it is "prohibitively expensive and energy intensive", while in the other part it concedes that the technology might progress in the future.
The entire article is laced with emotional contempt of technology and progress, and does little to help you understand the reasons of why you should be concerned with the problem it tries to present.
The technology isn’t even close to dealing with the scale of the problem, but sadly that’s not the primary issue.
The US, China, India, Russia, etc are unwilling to pay for significantly accelerated reductions in CO2 emissions even when directly economically beneficial. Carbon capture isn’t free and frankly nobody is willing to pay for it.
There's a real argument to be made there at the level of federal policy, but note that the US is at or near the top of the list in per-capita wind/solar/hydro and that it dominates world battery vehicle technology and production (though not yet deployment domestically).
There's a real schizophrenia problem politicly, and it's worth discussing. But really, americans are your allies here, and the US is doing a ton more help than harm.
I don't think the solution here is going to be "Industrialized nations need to reduce consumption to Honduras levels". Honduras isn't "efficient", it's just undeveloped. There's no feasible efficiency path to consumption on that level.
The point is that the US has and is installing per-capita renewable power at a world-leading rate. You aren't going to get more by implying otherwise, we're doing it just fine in comparison. Everyone needs to do more, you can't point fingers here.
That’s not what I am saying. Solar isn’t a limited resource. It’s not like doubling consumption requires Honduras to use a lower percentage of solar power.
Germany is IMO over invested in solar because their so far north, and their at 8.6%.
>> The US, China, India, Russia, etc are unwilling to pay for significantly accelerated reductions in CO2 emissions even when directly economically beneficial
Reduction in storm damage or wild fires for example. Once people have to flee coastal regions there will be a lot of money spent on dealing with refugees and most likely wars.
Yes, but currently, attribution is hard. And the press cried "wolf!" far too often with each and every lightning storm that was a little more severe than average. So currently there is no credibility in that future cost projections.
One example is solar hot water heaters are vastly cheaper than any other low grade heat source. Integrate them with traditional hot water heaters and you get all the benefits with nearly zero downsides. Yet, the technology is almost completely ignored by incentive programs instead of say adding them or other solar heat collection to building codes.
It isn't because of scale. Producing CO2 emissions is easy, capturing it will require an equal amount of capturing capacity. Unless we invent something that can scale up to capture 100% of current emissions (or even just 10%), reducing CO2 emissions will remain more economically viable.
The other problem is of course that if we can capture co2, the producers will just ramp up production. Compare with electricity production; if production goes up, cost goes down, consumption increases (because cheaper) and they will have to ramp production up again.
No one wants to change things for them short term worse, even if this is necessary for the long term. Do it becomes a very compelling story to tell people they don’t have to change because we’ll just capture and sequester. But even if this were a feasible strategy, it would just lead to further growth in emissions to offset the capture.
It's not that greenhouse gas removal cannot be done, but as the article says, it cannot distract from emissions reduction, and it's going to require a huge effort. But we probably require both emissions reduction and greenhouse gas removal.
This fantastical sea creature helps remove planet-warming gases from the atmosphere
"He and fellow researchers eventually learned that these creatures and their snot palaces play an outsize role in helping the ocean remove planet-warming carbon dioxide from the atmosphere — one more part of a vast and underappreciated system that makes the ocean an unsung hero of climate change. Covering more than 70% of Earth’s surface, the ocean has absorbed more than a quarter of the carbon dioxide released by humans since the Industrial Revolution, and about 90% of the resulting heat."
I did hear they other day they're finally increasing the cost of emission rights whilst lowering the amount of emissions in the "quota". There's probably a lot of trickery and cheating happening in that area though, like Tesla selling its emissions rights for a billion dollar because they don't have emissions themselves.
Tesla selling right isn’t trickery or cheating. It’s intended - it’s a way to shovel money low-carbon companies so they can develop. Tesla would be long-since bankrupt with that income stream.
The best strategy is to use stratospheric aerosol injections to stabilize temperatures over the next 50-100 years until carbon capture is ready to scale.
The problem with carbon capture is the high energy cost. So you need a source of cheap, abundant energy. Obviously the energy source itself can’t emit carbon. That most likely looks like fusion when we finally crack it circa 2100.
Until stratospheric aerosols are highly effective, dirt cheap and require very little energy. We absolutely know they work from historical volcano events. The only downside is they need to be constantly refreshed every year because they dissipate over time. So they’re a medium-term, not a long-term solution. But that buys us enough time to really get carbon capture right.
The issue is they are a massive global project that requires the same sorts of measurement ambiguity that lets people argue over anthropogenic climate change in the first place. I’m not going to argue the physics, because you’re right about it being a good strategy for all the reasons you mentioned… but unfortunately this is a worse is better scenario.
Direct methods that produce measurable byproducts that can be used to directly quantify how much CO2 has been removed, are macroeconomically speaking, going to be easier to find backers for both financially and politically. Without those backers nothing will happen with any large scale climate change mitigation efforts.
The best strategy is to place environment at the top priority, to breakdown capitalism and the frenesy for consumption, money, products. It's not idealism/utopism, I've been living since 10 years somewhat far from the modern lifestyle (except my laptop), I use a bike, and eat local fruits and legumes, or markets vegetables left/wasted at the end, I go to supermarket once or twice a year to buy soap bars and rice/quinoa, that's all. This guy is also a good inspiration https://www.robgreenfield.org/. It takes time, but it's easy to do the switch, governments/countries need to stop behaving like financial companies, we need to have public fruit trees and on the other side reduce the useless services and jobs (luxury, tourism, ..), remove intermediates, promote local food (avoid industrial collecting non-ripe fruits, and wasting ripe ones, ..), so many simple, logical things. Just reducing the use of cars will make people change their lifestyle for the better (both them and environment)
That is I think the solution, not a rocket science solution that tries to find yet another industrial way to depollute one of pollutants (and probably worsen the case for others and the overall balance), just a natural solution. As soon as people have a environment footprint much lower, like mine, it's like the total population is divided by 2 or more
Well, that is basically the "back to the stone age" strategy. While I applaud your efforts, I don't think that this would gain any traction in a sufficient part of the population.
We take the good parts of the past (food, green transports), and the best parts of our era (e.g. internet). As soon as we educate young people, and politics help with the urge of global heating, it'll gain traction
If you have to wait for old people to die off and young people to take over, you are looking at a timeline of at least one generation, maybe two. So 30 to 60 years. Climate change temperature goals of 1.5 or 2 degrees are unattainable if things take even 30 years.
I don’t understand why the intellectual narrative is “CO2 reduction at ANY cost… as long as we’re not wasting money on those expensive nuclear power plants”
.svg){kind=link}
The anthropocene is as it is, not as it should be. Emissions reduction, carbon removal, and solar radiation management are all important tools in managing the world we’ve made.
The sooner our cultural narrative expands to accept consequential responsibility, the better.
(Article is better than the headline)