There's no way this will ever be economical at the scale we need to fix what we've done.
this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2023
18 points (84.6% liked)
Hacker News
2169 readers
31 users here now
A mirror of Hacker News' best submissions.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Obviously there's more to it than just saying go, but honestly the economics of it should not matter whatsoever.
It could cost every penny on the planet and still be worth it, the alternative is the end.
If it's less effective than simply planting more plants, then it would be pointless. It'll take a massive amount of renewable energy to have any impact. That renewable energy might be better used to help burn less fossil fuels.
Oh don't get me wrong, we should be doing all that too.
Unfortunately though, it will not be enough. As of the past year or so, all remaining models to avoid hitting a climate breaking point require carbon removal and we're nowhere close to what is required (including natural capture methods).
We need to be throwing everything at this problem starting yesterday. All possible approaches should be put into play.
We pretty much have no choice. Stopping to put more CO into the atmosphere wont stop climate change unless we can also remove the excess we've already put there.
It doesn't need to be
Word of the day of, Green-washing.
This sums it up pretty well
Literally all ideas about carbon capture are quickly revealed to be cynical greenwashing if you think about one simple thing: how much CO2 do we need to store to offset global emissions?
The answer is that we need to store almost 40B tonnes of CO2, or around 10B tonnes of C if we break that down, every year. That's something on the order of 1500 great pyramids of Giza (which weighs 6M tonnes) worth of carbon every year.
Wouldn't it be more efficient to just grow algae, bamboo, hemp, sugarcane etc. and throw it in a hole somewhere?
We already have that, it's called trees 🤦♂️
sounds like orc mischief to me