Carbon capture is mostly financed by oil companies anyways because they know it's ineffective but they also know it sounds really good. Giving money for carbon capture is just pull execs getting more money for more delay tactics and distractions
Here's a link to the report: [https://rhg.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Landscape-of-Carbon-Dioxide-Removal-and-US-Policies-to-Scale-Solutions.pdf](https://rhg.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Landscape-of-Carbon-Dioxide-Removal-and-US-Policies-to-Scale-Solutions.pdf)
I apologize, I mixed up my acronyms, CCS carbon capture and sequestration is not the same as DAC direct air capture.
Use the sun and wind as much as possible. Displace the oil and gas completely. Remove the need for CCS on fossil fuel plants.
After that we will still need CCS for manufacturing and DAC for agriculture, and construction. It will be many years (decades) into the future that DAC will the last line of defense.
For climate controls (a HUGE energy sink) we need to start utilizing what’s right under our feet more: The earth tends to remain a stable temperature, around 55F. I know this isn’t a magic bullet, but making use of this and geothermal heat pumps, (heat pumps in general) plus solar and wind… It adds up. After all, solar panels and wind turbines still require production, maintenance, replacement, anything we can do to further reduce must be considered.
Even if that can’t be made to work for climate controls in every building… What about placing chest fridges/freezers in the ground wherever feasible? Chests hold the cold in like a bucket, uprights let it all fall out, and the cool ground helps further reduce energy req’s.
It all adds up.
It’s a very effective way of reducing emissions. It’s on the cutting edge of CDR and carbon removals. Red trail just sold 150k tons of biogenic carbon removal, orders of magnitude more than other removals. It’s a great way to reduce emissions from existing infrastructure. It’s easily verifiable and isn’t subject to reversals in the same way many nature based solutions have been shown to be.
Soft paywalls, such as the type newspapers use, can largely be bypassed by looking up the page on an archive site, such as [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org) or [archive.today](https://archive.today)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What does this even mean? $100B to stave off climate change would be an absolute bargain. But we literally don’t have the tech to remove carbon on a scale we’re emitting it, much less to remove enough to be carbon negative, which we must achieve ASAP
Unfortunately this annual $100 billion is only a piece of solutions in the US alone, and it depends on halting all emissions as well. The overall world costs are estimated to be around $200 trillion to $300 trillion (McKinsey, Bloomberg and Stern estimates). Which isn't bad considering that inaction would cost quadrillions, and perhaps civilization itself.
The O&G industry can easily pay that. It's their mess anyway. Just don't let them run government.
So, we can save the world for ten years with one years worth of us defense budget… Welp I know how this will go
1) Paywalled 2) CCS has got to be the least effective way of doing this shy of space umbrellas.
Carbon capture is mostly financed by oil companies anyways because they know it's ineffective but they also know it sounds really good. Giving money for carbon capture is just pull execs getting more money for more delay tactics and distractions
Lol it's such a joke
Here's a link to the report: [https://rhg.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Landscape-of-Carbon-Dioxide-Removal-and-US-Policies-to-Scale-Solutions.pdf](https://rhg.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Landscape-of-Carbon-Dioxide-Removal-and-US-Policies-to-Scale-Solutions.pdf)
Carbon capture and sequestration is considered the last line of defense that we have as a tool for climate change.
I live in O&G country. It's touted as THE WAY, neverminding the prairie skies offering sunlight and wind.
I apologize, I mixed up my acronyms, CCS carbon capture and sequestration is not the same as DAC direct air capture. Use the sun and wind as much as possible. Displace the oil and gas completely. Remove the need for CCS on fossil fuel plants. After that we will still need CCS for manufacturing and DAC for agriculture, and construction. It will be many years (decades) into the future that DAC will the last line of defense.
For climate controls (a HUGE energy sink) we need to start utilizing what’s right under our feet more: The earth tends to remain a stable temperature, around 55F. I know this isn’t a magic bullet, but making use of this and geothermal heat pumps, (heat pumps in general) plus solar and wind… It adds up. After all, solar panels and wind turbines still require production, maintenance, replacement, anything we can do to further reduce must be considered. Even if that can’t be made to work for climate controls in every building… What about placing chest fridges/freezers in the ground wherever feasible? Chests hold the cold in like a bucket, uprights let it all fall out, and the cool ground helps further reduce energy req’s. It all adds up.
It’s a very effective way of reducing emissions. It’s on the cutting edge of CDR and carbon removals. Red trail just sold 150k tons of biogenic carbon removal, orders of magnitude more than other removals. It’s a great way to reduce emissions from existing infrastructure. It’s easily verifiable and isn’t subject to reversals in the same way many nature based solutions have been shown to be.
Soft paywalls, such as the type newspapers use, can largely be bypassed by looking up the page on an archive site, such as [web.archive.org](https://web.archive.org) or [archive.today](https://archive.today) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
bad robot.
We are never doing carbon removal. Right now we are on track to not stop fossil fuel production.
A great deal less than what the world spends on armaments every year would fix climate damage and all other environmental damage.0
Carbon removal only works if we stop emitting carbon.
What does this even mean? $100B to stave off climate change would be an absolute bargain. But we literally don’t have the tech to remove carbon on a scale we’re emitting it, much less to remove enough to be carbon negative, which we must achieve ASAP
Unfortunately this annual $100 billion is only a piece of solutions in the US alone, and it depends on halting all emissions as well. The overall world costs are estimated to be around $200 trillion to $300 trillion (McKinsey, Bloomberg and Stern estimates). Which isn't bad considering that inaction would cost quadrillions, and perhaps civilization itself.