Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

climeworks OP t1_irrb8k7 wrote

We're at a point where reduction is not enough anymore. We need to remove emissions as well.

To be specific: The United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change (IPCC) says the use of carbon removal technologies is already “unavoidable” if we want to meet our climate goals, and that by 2050 we’ll need to remove and store 5-16 billion tons per year.

Companies that produce technologies to remove or reduce carbon emissions are “poised for strong continued growth,” reaching an expected value of $1.4 trillion by 2027, according to new market research.

PitchBook predicts that the emerging sector will enjoy an 8.8 percent growth rate over the next five years, “thanks to increasing global focus on aggressive emissions targets and consumer interest in emissions reduction.” That rate could also increase if there were “dramatic regulatory change or technological innovation” during that time, the report for investors said.

38

grundar t1_irs1w9b wrote

> by 2050 we’ll need to remove and store 5-16 billion tons per year.

This is the key point.

Direct air capture of CO2 is far too small-scale to be an excuse to slow down emissions reduction; that's not even on the table.

What DAC is useful for is:

  • (1) Offsetting hard-to-decarbonize edge cases.
  • (2) Reducing atmospheric CO2 to minimize overshoot.

To accomplish either of those goals, though, DAC will need to be deployed at a massive scale mid-century, and research shows it takes decades to scale up to that level of operations. Scaling up a large industry by 10x takes ~15 years, and there's less than two of those before 2050.

So the point of working on DAC now is not to have an excuse to delay emissions reductions; nobody serious is proposing that.
The point of working on DAC now is so it will be available at the scale needed in mid-century.

Mitigation at this scale takes decades of preparation.

26

Velocipedique t1_irrcjau wrote

The growth to the growth IS the problem, greenwashing it all you can will not put Humpty back together again.

11

wyl1e t1_irrvnu3 wrote

DAC is all greenwashed bullshit. Just another way for the biggest polluters to avoid accountability and this is what our governments are funding!? What a fucking shame.

5

climeworks OP t1_irs01s7 wrote

Hey, thanks for your comment, but allow us to jump in here quickly.

We don't want to avoid emission reduction, quite the contrary: we always preach "reduction" first, "removal" second.

DAC+S goes beyond reducing emissions because it allows to remove residual and historic CO2 emissions that are already in the atmosphere, which produces negative emissions.

Unfortunately the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change (IPCC) says the use of carbon removal technologies is already “unavoidable” if we want to meet our climate goals, and that by 2050 we’ll need to remove and store 5-16 billion tons per year.
Read more here:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/07/05/1055322/we-need-to-draw-down-carbon-not-just-stop-emitting-it/
https://time.com/6197651/carbon-credits-fight-climate-change/

10

wyl1e t1_irs3rdc wrote

Carbon Credits are an absolute joke. DAC is extremely cost inefficient and is a distraction we should stop pushing. Corporate accountability is the first and best way and we need our governments on board. Everything else is a waste of time and money.

Edit: How about those natural "DAC" things we have on earth, called trees? How about changing the way we farm and dropping this money into subsidizing new practices instead of these big useless fans?

8

Emerging-Dudes t1_irsh3wo wrote

Exactly. The best way to reduce carbon emissions is for wealthy nations to consume less, and best way to sequester carbon is to regenerate topsoils worldwide. Transition away from industrial, fertilizer based food production towards regenerative agriculture and permaculture. Oh, and plant more trees, whilst also putting a stop to deforestation for beef and pork production.

DAC is just another way for “technology” companies squeeze blood from the stone that is late stage capitalism.

3

kaminaowner2 t1_irtknu8 wrote

See when you guys say this history actually does say you’re wrong, we have screwed up environments and even our Ozone layer and fixed it, when people care about something the market(literally just our collective will) does acknowledge it. The Ozone is healing and the wolfs and bison are back. We control this planet and Humpy turns out to be child’s play to us to put back together.

1

Synergythepariah t1_irsm48n wrote

>We're at a point where reduction is not enough anymore. We need to remove emissions as well.

We're at that point because the investor class in the past didn't care about any of that stuff - and because it wasn't able to be profitable in the short term.

Now that it's becoming more and more obviously necessary, investment is shifting toward those technologies and they're becoming profitable - now that there's money to be made, the investor class is embracing the idea of doing something about climate change.

And an aspect of futurology is imagining a future that isn't more of the same thing where people only give a shit about a problem when solving it has economic benefit.

You're getting criticism here because people look at this and know that it's going to be used the same way offsets have been used and because this whole post is a sales pitch.

It's not even really about your product, it's that it's fucking depressing that our entire economic structure is built in a way that a problem even one that threatens the existence of society as we know it is all but ignored until solving it becomes profitable - then in comes the investor class, swooping in to save us from the problem that they created in the first place.

2

motions2u2wipemyass t1_irtz8nx wrote

I remember reading that carbon removal is completely unviable.

I forgot who it was, but some leading expert in carbon removal who spent 10 years studying it and developing it eventually gave up and doesn't think it is a worthwhile investment.

1

john6644 t1_irs3n8v wrote

I've heard carbon capture is a myth. The only way to reduce carbon effectively is to pollute less in every aspect. I'm willing to hear about breakthrough tech but, lets not play ourselves. We are living past our means as a species, and we have been for awhile now.

−3