Scientists’ Secret Vote: A U.N. climate report legitimized carbon capture and storage, suggesting at least 99% of the CO2 would likely remain underground, despite scant empirical evidence.
Oil Industry Favorite: Fossil fuel companies have identified carbon capture as a climate solution that will allow their industry to survive, and have pushed the U.N. and scientists to study it.
Pattern of Underperformance: Decades later, major CO2 storage projects have suffered breakdowns, setbacks and cost overruns, while CCS remains central to climate models and policy.
These highlights were written by the reporters and editors who worked on this story. "
I suggest you dig into the data a little deeper. 1) There are rock matrix all over the world that will capture carbon under ground. They’ve pumped some already. 2) Just not adding more carbon doesn’t get rid of the trillions of pounds already added. What’s already in there is enough to explode climate change. It needs to come out, and Mother Nature isn’t fast enough. 3) the investment in capture has been weak, and broken up by GOP governments. Los Alamos labs have done a complete study and already have the high lipid density algae ready to be natural pillar of the three prong capture and sequester strategy. Instead of investing in removal, they invest in arm and as the water and food run out they think they can just kill those without. Meanwhile capture is viable and just needs investment.
>Meanwhile capture is viable and just needs investment.
Not really. From an essay I posted here a couple days ago. The entire essay is worth a read, but this is one of the things that stand out.
>In a recent update, the World Climate Research Programme, which produces climate scenarios for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), includes some eye-watering projections of novel, engineered carbon removal. Among them are a few scenarios that project 10–30 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide removed per year by 2100. That’s a staggering 5,000- to 15,000-fold increase from today, with no real justification for how they arrived at those numbers.
>While these scenarios are made to sound scientific – coming out of so-called “integrated assessment” economic models – they are not. They are nothing more than wild guesses about how the world could change over the coming decades. They rest on no testable scientific hypotheses or empirical evidence and are basically bedtime stories about the future, complete with fictional numbers.
As one of the climate scientists I follow has said (paraphrasing), "If you think there's opposition to data centers because of noise and pollution, wait until people find out how noisy carbon capture is."
The cost of the world wide human food web collapsing will cost more. When the ocean is dead, and the typhoons don’t bring the rainy season, what are the 3 billion people of Asia going to do? We need to stop asking those who make money off of the burning of carbon what should we do about carbon pollution.
scrumplic | 19 hours ago
" Reporting Highlights
Scientists’ Secret Vote: A U.N. climate report legitimized carbon capture and storage, suggesting at least 99% of the CO2 would likely remain underground, despite scant empirical evidence.
Oil Industry Favorite: Fossil fuel companies have identified carbon capture as a climate solution that will allow their industry to survive, and have pushed the U.N. and scientists to study it.
Pattern of Underperformance: Decades later, major CO2 storage projects have suffered breakdowns, setbacks and cost overruns, while CCS remains central to climate models and policy.
These highlights were written by the reporters and editors who worked on this story. "
...
Interesting. I hadn't heard about cc for a while.
TeamWorkTom | 13 hours ago
Lmfao jokes on the Fossil Fuel industry because that's about to go bust when Trump invades Iran with soldiers on the ground after the Midterms
SexyCouple4Bliss | 17 hours ago
I suggest you dig into the data a little deeper. 1) There are rock matrix all over the world that will capture carbon under ground. They’ve pumped some already. 2) Just not adding more carbon doesn’t get rid of the trillions of pounds already added. What’s already in there is enough to explode climate change. It needs to come out, and Mother Nature isn’t fast enough. 3) the investment in capture has been weak, and broken up by GOP governments. Los Alamos labs have done a complete study and already have the high lipid density algae ready to be natural pillar of the three prong capture and sequester strategy. Instead of investing in removal, they invest in arm and as the water and food run out they think they can just kill those without. Meanwhile capture is viable and just needs investment.
[OP] The_Weekend_Baker | 17 hours ago
>Meanwhile capture is viable and just needs investment.
Not really. From an essay I posted here a couple days ago. The entire essay is worth a read, but this is one of the things that stand out.
>In a recent update, the World Climate Research Programme, which produces climate scenarios for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), includes some eye-watering projections of novel, engineered carbon removal. Among them are a few scenarios that project 10–30 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide removed per year by 2100. That’s a staggering 5,000- to 15,000-fold increase from today, with no real justification for how they arrived at those numbers.
>While these scenarios are made to sound scientific – coming out of so-called “integrated assessment” economic models – they are not. They are nothing more than wild guesses about how the world could change over the coming decades. They rest on no testable scientific hypotheses or empirical evidence and are basically bedtime stories about the future, complete with fictional numbers.
https://drawdown.org/insights/heres-why-assuming-massive-growth-in-carbon-removal-is-reckless-and-unwarranted
As one of the climate scientists I follow has said (paraphrasing), "If you think there's opposition to data centers because of noise and pollution, wait until people find out how noisy carbon capture is."
max_nukem | 19 hours ago
> And if all of that were accomplished, the effort would come at an almost inconceivable cost: tens of trillions of dollars.
We're cooked.
jxj24 | 19 hours ago
Literally
SexyCouple4Bliss | 17 hours ago
The cost of the world wide human food web collapsing will cost more. When the ocean is dead, and the typhoons don’t bring the rainy season, what are the 3 billion people of Asia going to do? We need to stop asking those who make money off of the burning of carbon what should we do about carbon pollution.
sumpfbruderschaft | 17 hours ago
Go ask China.