> By the end of this century we'll have the technology to make carbon capture (and atmospheric carbon targeting more generally) a trivial exercise.
The fact people are delusional enough to think this might not happen shows there are still a lot of suckers out there that need to be parted with their money [1]
That's the entire industrial environmental complex.
But it will also work at a more abstract level. What else can be made up to extract money from them?
[1] With the obvious irony because they suck resources from pandemic preparedness and environmental measures they might cause a global collapse of some sort.
> The only solution to this problem is technology.
There already exists a "carbon offset market" [1]
So the solution is economical, which in turn will lead to technological solutions (carbon-reducing technology directly driven by profits in this market).
> I haven't seen evidence that their off-gassing actually accounts for a meaningful portion of harmful emissions.
I assume you read my post at the top and saw this:
A Carbon Tracker study in 2015 found that fossil fuel
companies risked wasting more than $2tn over the coming
decade by pursuing coal, oil and gas projects that could be
worthless in the face of international action on climate
change and advances in renewables – in turn posing
substantial threats to investor returns.
I also assume you've done research and seen these:
Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says
and
"There are thousands of oil, gas and coal producers in
the world," climate researcher and author Richard Heede
at the Climate Accountability Institute in Colorado
said. "But the decision makers, the CEOs, or the
ministers of coal and oil if you narrow it down to just
one person, they could all fit on a Greyhound bus or
two."
Half of the estimated emissions were produced just in
the past 25 years – well past the date when governments
and corporations became aware that rising greenhouse gas
emissions from the burning of coal and oil were causing
dangerous climate change.
Many of the same companies are also sitting on
substantial reserves of fossil fuel which – if they are
burned – puts the world at even greater risk of
dangerous climate change.
So, assuming you have done that research and have seen those, would you mind clarifying what you are saying?
> But we cannot control that.
At the very least there should be accountability that the deliberate, malicious actions of these (more or less) 90 people have put the entire species at risk. The point here is that they had enough warning and time to diversify to nuclear and renewable energy, but instead of doing that they covered it up and put us in an impossible position.
> We can science our way out of this shit. Not true.
Why not? We have a lot of promising developments both in cheap energy production and in reducing the cost to vacuumed green house gases out of the atmosphere. I can easily see a world where we change almost nothing about life and still achieve net negative carbon by just ripping it out of the air.
Honestly we even have the technology to do it now just limited will if things ever get real bad that would change very quickly.
> we have no practical carbon capture technology better than planting big-ass trees
This is not true. There are many projects underway (example - [1]) utilizing various technologies, and while it's true none has yet to reach economy of scale there is still time to do so. We only need a few good and scaleable solutions.
> Using the coast of Peru as a case study, the team calculate that depositing 50,000 tonnes of tephra – a bulk carrier vessel’s worth – offshore could sequester 2750 tonnes of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Current global CO2 output is 51 gigatons. Their solution is not viable. It won't even put a dent in the current output. [1]
>No, it will _never_ be feasible to collect and transport any meaningful amount of carbon out of the atmosphere.
This is obviously utterly false, given how much CO2 has been absorbed each year by current gen CO2 absorption technology.
>But carbon is completely worthless.
Current Gen carbon absorbers turn CO2 into some of the most useful materials on earth, like food, building materials and raw materials for oils and plastics. Much of the current world logistics is already dedicated to transporting their products.
> Remember that only 100 companies are responsible for 71% of climate change.
That has to be one of the most misleading statistics I've ever heard. The source of this appears to be here[0], they are assigning all emissions of products to the source company. e.g. the emissions from the gas an individual uses is assigned to the company that pulled the oil out of the ground.
> It's nonsense like this that makes a more rational debate around carbon capture difficult.
such a great point and couldn't agree more.
in the US, I'm seeing more ethanol & chemical companies adopting carbon capture right now, not fossil fuel companies. it will be interesting to see how it evolves in the next couple years.
It really isn't. The 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions have a massively outsized impact on the climate. They have got exceptional PR and have done a spectacular job of diffusing their responsibilities and protecting their bottom lines at the expense of the planet.
> 100 companies are responsible for ~70% of emissions.
End consumers are buying and using the products of those emissions. Companies don’t create emissions out of economic isolation and a purely evil desire to ruin the planet. They do it because someone is paying them to do it.
When I buy and burn gas from Shell, I’m the one responsible for those emissions, not Shell, IMO.
They can.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/23/these-companies-are-sucking-...
reply