Ambiguous carbon accounting sounds like a shady tax fraud scheme
Why not both
Yes… unexpected. Surely we couldn’t predict that people would lie about their climate progress!
We are fucked guys … details unessesary
The world will get warmer and the weather crazier, but there are still upsides to intelligent predictions and coordinated response. You should prepare for the worst, but the not-worst also requires preparation.
There will be no coordinated response. There will be very little if any preparation.
If COVID taught us anything, it’s that humanity is unable to deal with matters of this scale. Anyone relying on the worlds governments to save them, are in for a rude awakening.
Just pack it up and ship it off the earth
Better to make stuff with it. Like diamonds, graphene, or carbon nanotubes.
How about wood?
It grows on trees, and if we bury it under anerobic conditions it won’t rot and release the stored carbon. No need for sealants or preservatives, the wooden piles that the city of Venice was built on are still intact after hundreds of years buried in mud.
Bonus, we can drive them vertically into the earth to stabilize it. That will help us address the landslides that have become more common due to the changing climate.
Ah yes, the Elon solution.
That would be a solution for Elon though
The storage part is a big issue with current plans for CCS and DAC. If they end up turning around and repackaging the CO2 into something that can be released again, it’s only better than pumping out new petroleum and not a true reduction.
But the title is a bit wrong. It should be “Pulling CO2 out of the air alone won’t stop climate change”. Even if we dropped the CO2 level to preexisting levels (280ppm or even lower) there are still some feedbacks already in play that wouldn’t suddenly stop their contribution. It would be far better than continuing to add to CO2 for sure, but there is still going to be some climate change and adaptation needs regardless of how well we act. And of course, we are not acting very well.
Mineralization. There is a paper from Nature estimating a capacity of 10,000 - 100,000 Gt CO₂ for mineralizing CO₂. This is more than sufficient for the 1,000 - 2,000 Gt CO₂ that we will need to remove from the atmosphere once we reach zero emission. Needless to say, mineralization to a solid carbonate would remove the threat of fugitive emissions permanently.
People can complain about DAC as expensive etc., but it is the fastest way to bring down CO₂ once emissions have ceased. Without it, we will be stuck with the climate effects of increased greenhouse gas emissions - severe storms, erratic climate events - for hundreds of years. The fact that it is expensive just means that we will need to know what our target CO₂ level is and how how fast we want to get there.
Often, it’s said, “Just plant trees.” However, trees are not a sufficient solution for greenhouse gas reduction. A 2022 article in Environmental Research Letters predicts a “121 Gt C increase in carbon in forests over the course of this century.” That’s great, but it’s not enough to get GHG down to an ideal level. Of course, that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t engage in sustainable agriculture and reforestation - we should, but we should not rely on it as a climate restoration strategy because it cannot deliver those kinds of GHG reductions.
If only we could use massive floating solar arrays anchored over the Mariana Trench, and use that power to create carbon fibre from atmospheric CO2. Some could be used in industry, but let’s scale that up until we are creating solid spheres of carbon 1-2m in diameter and dropping those into that subduction trench. It will take some time, but most ought to be pulled down into the crust via subduction, and return carbon to the mantle where it ought to be locked away for several hundred million years.
Keep doing that until we have gotten things back down to under 200ppm.
