Net zero isn't really well defined or meaningful at any level below the entire globe.
this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2024
48 points (98.0% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5237 readers
452 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 can get to personal net zero but not with offsets.
At what that costs, it's cheaper to move to a heat pump and induction stove.
You can make biochar at home and it's not expensive. The finished product is a valuable commodity.
Not at anything like the scale that matches typical home heating fossil fuel use unless you're bringing in biological material and then exporting the characoal. And once you're doing that, you're having significant land use impacts and using significant fossil fuels to move the biomass and charcoal. This usually doesn't make sense, especially if you're going to pay the cost of a system designed to limit particulate production.
What you describe (using fossil fuels) is a worst case scenario and not a requirement. I could turn the argument around and say don't use the heat pumps you recommend because after all, they require electricity, which requires fossil fuels. And then where are we?
You say that CDR is expensive, but it's not. As proof I'll give two examples:
- companies that make and sell biochar
- regenerative agriculture that sequesters many tons of carbon in soil while being more profitable than conventional agriculture
I've seen the efforts on biochar; there are examples of it being done well, and a lot of it being done badly. Without accounting and auditing to track what's going on, you often don't get great results.
Regenerative agriculture is ill-defined, and there's a lot of fraud in that space when it comes to carbon sequestration claims.
Without accounting and auditing to track what’s going on, you often don’t get great results.
You can say the exact same thing about the things you propose... so again, where are we? Please consider this line of reasoning and ask yourself why you're so quick to use it.
Regenerative agriculture is ill-defined, and there’s a lot of fraud in that space when it comes to carbon sequestration claims.
Can you show me a lot of fraud in regenerative agriculture in the context of USDA NRCS SOM tests? I'd like to see it.
That's too specific for me to turn one up; most of it is in the form of people saying "i'm doing regenerative ag, pay me" and doing no measurement and making all sorts of wild claims.
There are some serious limits to its scale as well.
That’s too specific for me to turn one up; most of it is in the form of people saying “i’m doing regenerative ag, pay me” and doing no measurement and making all sorts of wild claims.
Big negative claims apparently backed by nothing.
There are some serious limits to its scale as well.
Gabe Brown's regenerative ag farm is 5000 acres. That's a specific claim. You can even visit his farm in person.
Funnily enough it is for both:
electricity price / 3 + cost of heat pump or stove = gas price
Both gas and electricity price obviously over a longer period of time and the 3 can be higher for better heat pumps. Obviously if you have rooftop solar electricity cost can be lower as well.