this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2024
62 points (100.0% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5269 readers
892 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I assume you mean net zero, which isn't zero emissions but countering existing and hopefully lower emissions with some tech to remove its output. Actual zero emissions is...well, that's cessation of human activity. And there would still be emissions from the feedbacks already started with either.
Let's be clear, human emissions even at our current rate are just a percentage of total emissions, and act as a pushing force to drive things further. Taking that away is better, but it doesn't stop the direction we've set things in motion. If we could somehow pull carbon back down to under 300ppm or even less...that would start to brake things, at least reduce the heat input finally, but so much other damage has been done that I think even that kind of miracle wouldn't be enough.
I get your stance, we have to do what we can now to minimize the future results, and I agree. I just disagree on where even the best actions from humans (which are very idealistic) would get us.
The main problem with carbon removal is that it's expensive, and removing it doesn't produce a product you can sell. So in practice, doing something like what you describe within a generation requires a system of taxation which absorbs 40% or so of total economic output, and uses it to sequester carbon. That seems, to put it mildly, politically very difficult.
You're correct on the marketability. You either sell it to be released later defeating the purpose, or by hopefully sequestering it to help with extraction of fossil fuel, which again...maybe not worth it. To actually remove massive amounts of CO2 and permanently take it out of the cycle is akin to burying money.
I see the main problem not as the cost, but the scalability. Our best efforts so far don't even amount to a fraction of a percent. There have been recent developments that could help some, so that would be a percentage of our annual emissions. A long way to go when the preferable solution is to remove emission amounts not only being emitted, but past years' amounts too.
@silence7 @Rhaedas
Isn't the exception biochar?
Maybe. It's of fairly limited resale value compared with the cost of producing it and transporting it. I don't know of anybody making it near me with the expectation that they can profit as a result; I mostly see small-scale production when doing things like disposing of hazard trees
Biochar is an attempt to make a product from the effort, and it's a leading one we have. It's still better for the net result to just bury the carbon without trying to gain anything. But like I mention above, that's a literal money sink and no company would do that without being subsidied for the effort.