Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We need to take CO2 out of the sky – an overview of climate tech

orbuch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 267 posts

Re: We need to take CO2 out of the sky – an overview of climate tech

#111

Post by xxgreg »

ailideex wrote: post #71
privateSFacct wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It only has to do it cheaply now because there is NO COST to putting CO2 into the air. Why are people surprised that if something is free (pumping CO2 into air) demand for it is high? You are telling me that doing a charge of let's say $10 - $100/ton of CO2 wouldn't have a DRAMATIC impact on emissions? Is $10 - $100/ton too little for a supposed climate emergency? There is so much funding and lawmaking and finger poi…

Good luck convincing China to impose a carbon tax.

China has piloted a number of carbon pricing schemes since 2013. It is introducing a nationwide scheme this year. https://www.reuters.com/article/climate-change-china-idUSL3N...

Re: We need to take CO2 out of the sky – an overview of climate tech

#112

Post by AncientTree »

cs02rm0 wrote: post #61
AncientTree wrote: post #60

My biggest concern about CO2 is the cognitive impact it has on humans - at levels 800ppm and higher, mental performance is impacted. It will take a while for the atmosphere to reach this level (hopefully it never does), but it is common inside houses and offices. As atmospheric CO2 rises, it becomes more difficult to ventilate buildings, and human mental performance degrades. In terms of geoengineering, it seems like…

Have you got a reference for the 800ppm bit? Not being provocative - it'd be genuinely useful to me.

There are multiple studies on the issue, and another user linked to Wikipedia.

I'd personally recommend buying a CO2 monitor: https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32887534678.html?spm=a2g0o.p...

Re: We need to take CO2 out of the sky – an overview of climate tech

#113

Post by jokoon »

I don't like those sorts of articles because they dismiss the idea of reducing CO2 emissions, while only talking about hypothetical technologies.

I don't think it's a good idea to wait for such undeveloped technology to mature, because the clock is already ticking. It is still much more important to reduce emissions now.

What would be much better, for example, is developing smaller cars. I would rather see society organize for a voluntary reduction of co2, because capturing co2 seems like scientifically too fastidious.

Also, I'm european and I tend to be very pessimistic when looking at US co2 emissions per capita.

Re: We need to take CO2 out of the sky – an overview of climate tech

#116

Post by p0nce »

threeseed wrote: post #45
privateSFacct wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It only has to do it cheaply now because there is NO COST to putting CO2 into the air. Why are people surprised that if something is free (pumping CO2 into air) demand for it is high? You are telling me that doing a charge of let's say $10 - $100/ton of CO2 wouldn't have a DRAMATIC impact on emissions? Is $10 - $100/ton too little for a supposed climate emergency? There is so much funding and lawmaking and finger poi…

You mean a Carbon Tax ? The tax that applies to every single business, every single product, every single process, everything. The one that causes every single vested interest to come out of the woodwork and join together to make it politically toxic. We tried this in Australia. It has killed every government that even dared to discuss it. And politically it is utterly impossible to defend e.g. "Carbon tax that raise…

Carbon tax is not harder to implement than VAT. It's also the most effective tool against CO2 release.

Re: We need to take CO2 out of the sky – an overview of climate tech

#117

Post by xxgreg »

lopmotr wrote: post #38
ouid wrote: post #2

why do they get to start the annual temperature anomaly graph at around -.3 in 1900.

It's not a quantity that has any natural zero, nor is time (year since Jesus?). So you can start it wherever you want.

Pedantic answer... You could start at 0 Kelvin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero

Re: We need to take CO2 out of the sky – an overview of climate tech

#118

Post by aforwardslash »

davedx wrote: post #98
aforwardslash wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK tree sequestration is marginal compared to the amount of co2 to be captured. Also, trees rot, and the decomposition process reverts a chunk of the process (releases co2)

> AFAIK tree sequestration is marginal compared to the amount of co2 to be captured Nope. Tree sequestration is extremely effective on a global scale. That's why it's so important that we prevent deforestation. "Intact forests and those re-growing after disturbance (like harvesting or windthrow) sequestered around 4 billion tonnes of carbon per year over the measurement period — equivalent to almost 60% of emissions…

Well, the study considers already existing forests. Is it feasible to eg. increase global forestation by 100% to offset 60% of emissions? Not sure. Also, it considers a limited timespan. While it is not that relevant for undisturbed forests that usually have a stable ecosystem (trees born and die gradually), it may be an issue with disturbed ones; trees will tend to have about the same age and the same duration; this will cause release spikes related to decomposition. Also, "planting trees" usually is a placeholder response that largely ignores the impact of monocultures in the soil, subterranean water reservations and propagation of forest fires, plus the fact that co2 tends to concentrate higher in the atmosphere, way above the average tree line.

In summary: its not as bad as I thought when I wrote the previous reply, sure. But it is still far from feasible.

Re: We need to take CO2 out of the sky – an overview of climate tech

#119

Post by StreamBright »

ailideex wrote: post #71
privateSFacct wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It only has to do it cheaply now because there is NO COST to putting CO2 into the air. Why are people surprised that if something is free (pumping CO2 into air) demand for it is high? You are telling me that doing a charge of let's say $10 - $100/ton of CO2 wouldn't have a DRAMATIC impact on emissions? Is $10 - $100/ton too little for a supposed climate emergency? There is so much funding and lawmaking and finger poi…

Good luck convincing China to impose a carbon tax.

You could but they already planning for a greener future. CO2 is the least of the problems with burning anything (including coal in power plants).

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-an...

Re: We need to take CO2 out of the sky – an overview of climate tech

#120

Post by acd »

We need to stop consuming like there is no tomorrow. This is driven by advertisement convincing consumers they should buy products they may not need. Secondly we need to make products which lasts a life time. I see root cause that we need to remodel the economy from market economy consumerism to a circular sustainable economy. Most current economists is saying expand expand expand, but that increases co2 levels due to increased energy consumption of manufacturing which we cannot sustain. Thus we must use things which are long term sustainable and circulate and repair these things.

Remove co2 out of the sky is also a good thing. The best thing I can think of then is to lower the temperature of the earth because then the oceans will act as a Co2 buffer sink. Think like carbon beverage, when you cool cans during production for putting carbon in them you cool them. If you heat a can they release stored co2. The same process with the oceans but at a much bigger scale.

Post reply on HN