Hacker News Reader

Comment by abootstrapper | Hacker News Reader

What we need is for carbon sequestration to become a profitable industry.

Is there even a viable approach for this on a large scale?

Yes. We can realistically capture and store permanently many Gigatonnes of CO2 per year. It involves capture of CO2 from concentrated point sources (power plants, chemical plants, metal and cement factories etc) and transport to permanent geological storage. We have all the tech and know how to scale up. The only problem is that it's pure cost, no short-term benefit, so no company will do it voluntarily.

This would slow the rate of emissions, but not eliminate them or suck any extant CO2 from the atmosphere, correct?

Right. But it's a start.

How much sequestration would we need to do to actually reverse the effect, and why can't we?

I know why we won't, at least...

To actually reverse climate change (as opposed to simply slowing or stopping its further progress), we'd need to go back to pre-industrial CO2 levels. That's not physically impossible, but it is (almost certainly) politically and economically impossible, at least with current technology and politics.

Cheap solar and coming to our senses about nuclear power (i.e. promoting it) could make a big dent. So it's not hopeless. But it's sure not going to be easy.

Ah, wow, pre-industrial? So there's no leeway at all? You mean we'd have to go back to pre-industrial emissions levels, or actually sequester all the carbon we emitted all these decades?

Luckily, cheap solar seems to be coming, and electric cars are hopefully becoming more widespread as well. Nuclear is a different story, unfortunately that one doesn't seem to be very palatable to the average person, even though it sounds like a silver bullet.

Pretty much. It's a matter of degree. The more CO2, the warmer.

So, if we could wave a wand and get to 310 ppm, that would be great! But 280 would be even better. Realistically we've got some warming baked in from feedback effects (less snow, etc) so lowering to industrial levels wouldn't get us back to preindustrial temperatures immediately.

If we magically stopped emitting immediately, we'd still see warming because of lag in the effects, feedback, etc, and we'd find it uncomfortable. With more emissions it will be worse.

So, sequestering emissions is a very worthy goal, and why stopped remains important even though we're past a point where damage begins. Damage can still get worse and we should try to avoid that.

Figuring out some way to actually reverse them is the holy grail though. We would need nuclear or solar for that, most likely.

A bit of nuclear waste in the ground is better than carbon waste in the air.

Do you have any references for how to do this? How do you transport and store gigatons of anything?

You capture and sequester on site underground.

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/newsreleases/20...

Yeah plant forests instead of cutting them down. Also it doesn't matter when the high albedo ice on the poles melts.

You need to cut them down to sequester them and also to make room for new trees. The carbon remains sequestered as long as you do not burn it or let it decay.

Interesting. So a forest in equilibrium emits (dead trees rotting) the same amount of co2 than what it uses via photosynthesis?

Yes, growing and composting is part of the natural CO2 cycle. The problem is not CO2 in it self, but all the extra we humans add to the natural cycle.

I like to think of it as having a glass with a hole in the bottom, as long as the stream in is the same as the stream out the level stay the same. Adding to the stream in or making the hole smaller will change the level and in the end overfill and spill

At the moment Colorado is going the opposite direction, forests are turning into grasslands.

What parts of Colorado? If you look at a picture of Boulder from 1900 and one from today, the difference is striking. True tallgrass and shortgrass prairies are among the most endangered ecosystems on the planet.

It's the Front Range that's badly affected, winters aren't as cold as they used to be, and as a result the Montain Pine Beetle is expanding its range. The weakened pine forests are a fire hazard.

The problem is that carbon sequestration costs more now. Although it would arguably reduce future costs, there doesn't seem to be a workable economic mechanism for linking that to the present. I'm certainly no economist, but the current situation seems clear enough.

"The world is going to hell, almost literally"

"We just need to figure out how to make money while avoiding it"

Which pretty much sums up why we are here.

Well if you can give up your job, say no to money, then we wouldn’t be here.

"We just need to figure out how to make money while avoiding it" is just other words for "To achieve X, we need to figure out (and implement) an incentive structure so that people would benefit from doing stuff that facilitates X, which is pretty much the only way to get them to do it".

That's what I was trying to say. So how do people benefit now from preventing likely future disaster?

Right now they don't, but the major governments can set up incentives so that e.g. carbon sequestration would/could become a profitable industry.

No they cant.

After talking to many people over many years - its getting increasing clear that we cannot afford to stop our economic systems.

Even meager impacts of these systems result in huge shocks to the political systems which result in politicians getting un-elected.

This means that the people talking about actual change will never get the floor - the requirements are too high- profit margins will take too much of a hit, GDP growth will become anemic and wage growth will be stunted.

The things we need, are too expensive, and its FAR too cheap to just abuse the commons, than to let people know the actual full price of the cheap and convenient goods we use.

Put this on our species' eventual planetary gravestone -- as a warning to others.

I get that. And I was hoping for something purely economic. But maybe that's impossible. Which is why governments.

Think about it this way: how you make somebody to do something? There's only two sure ways to achieve it - make them afraid not to do it or make them rewarded for doing it. What would you prefer - people getting executed for going over their carbon quota or somebody making money from carbon sequestration? What you would prefer to happen to you? I think I prefer the money solution over the fear solution.

> I think I prefer the money solution over the fear solution.

A carbon tax/ETS is also a money driven solution, a proven one at that. No need to execute anyone.

Proven to do what? Stuff the pockets of some well-connected people? Sure. Finance a variety of pet projects that end up in nothing but money exchanging pockets? You betcha. Suppress the economic growth? Of course.

Solving anything related to what they purport to solve? Nope.

Check this out: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-08/co2-emissions-hit-...

US does not have carbon tax. Many European countries do. You tell me how that happens.

> Proven to do what?

Proven to reduce emissions, just like the Montreal protocol did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol.

> Sure. Finance a variety of pet projects that end up in nothing but money exchanging pockets? You betcha. Suppress the economic growth? Of course.

All those same arguments were said about the Montreal protocol, but the sky didn't fall.

> US does not have carbon tax. Many European countries do. You tell me how that happens.

According to your own source European emissions dropped 1.5% from 206 to 2016 while the US dropped 1.2%. Even this isn't a fair comparison as Europeans emit much less already, there is less fat to cut.

Additionally you seem to think we can reward people for sequestering carbon, where do you propose this reward comes from?

> but the sky didn't fall.

You are trying to confuse two things - suppression of economic growth and total collapse of the economics, and claiming since the latter didn't happen it proves no claim of the former could be ever true. It doesn't work that way.

> Additionally you seem to think we can reward people for sequestering carbon, where do you propose this reward comes from?

If you think it's important to do it, and many people like you do so, you could all chip in. We have some very wealthy people, billionaires, and more than one, that support doing something about this. Surely paying some money is the easiest way for them of doing something one could ever imagine.

It does, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com