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

121–130 of 267 posts

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

#121

Post by xxgreg »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #6

Why do we always phrase it as changing the climate instead of facing that it's an energy balance issue? Too much energy is entering the earth and getting trapped. We can solve it by letting less enter, or otherwise sinking some of it. Consider if we stored the excess energy as chemical energy? or reflected some fraction of the energy back out away from us? reducing consumption is a failing project and the greener tec…

It is phrased this way because the changing climate is what negatively affects civilization.

While it is an energy imbalance which causes the climate to change, modifying the energy input or output via geoengineering will also cause the climate to change, even if the overall balance stays the same.

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

#122

Post by phtrivier »

jokoon wrote: post #113

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 or…

I think the author actually agrees with you, per the article itself:

  "there are two general approaches to keep warming to below a certain level:

  - Reducing emissions
  - Removing previous emissions from the sky

  If you remember one thing from this piece, it should be that we need to do both. 
  Gone are the days where optimistic emissions reductions kept us below a 2-degree warming target."

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

#123

Post by akie »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #28

What the article leaves to the conclusion is what needs to be stated up front and center: it's virtually impossible to do this efficiently, cheaply, or effectively because there's so little CO2 in the air, meaning a) adding even a little bit more greatly affects the CO2 levels b) with a global ppm of ~400, it basically means that you need to filter 2500 molecules of air to get a single molecule of CO2, and that's ass…

We need to treat climate change like the existential crisis that it is, and start spending like we're at war. If we can drop 2000 billion dollars on war in Iraq, why can we not do the same for something actually worthwhile like ensuring that our children and grandchildren inherit a livable planet?

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

#124

Post by manmal »

jokoon wrote: post #113

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 or…

Even better than developing smaller cars would be to reduce meat intake. AFAIK that's the single biggest improvement a single person can make to their CO2 footprint. And it's not that hard to pull off - just tax meat more heavily. I'm not sure the party who passes such a law would get reelected though.

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

#125

Post by pm90 »

akie wrote: post #123
ComputerGuru wrote: post #28

What the article leaves to the conclusion is what needs to be stated up front and center: it's virtually impossible to do this efficiently, cheaply, or effectively because there's so little CO2 in the air, meaning a) adding even a little bit more greatly affects the CO2 levels b) with a global ppm of ~400, it basically means that you need to filter 2500 molecules of air to get a single molecule of CO2, and that's ass…

We need to treat climate change like the existential crisis that it is, and start spending like we're at war. If we can drop 2000 billion dollars on war in Iraq, why can we not do the same for something actually worthwhile like ensuring that our children and grandchildren inherit a livable planet?

We can. However that would fundamentally shift the economy off fossil fuels which is one of the largest lobbying groups in Washington and specifically the GOP.

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

#126

Post by lorenzhs »

lacker wrote: post #20
roel_v wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article links to a website where you can calculate your footprint, and buy offsets in various programs to negate that footprint (projectwren.com). It would cost me USD 17 / month to offset my (larger than average for my country) footprint. Why do I even bother with my reusable coffee cup and paper straws for that kind of money? I just don't understand. If an extra charge of $10 / month for everyone in Europe woul…

You’re probably correct that your reusable cup and paper straws are ineffective mechanisms for preventing climate change.

Reducing the use of disposable plastics isn't supposed to prevent climate change, it's about reducing the amount of trash. While any trash that you put in the bin in a western country is highly unlikely to end up in the world's oceans, it still sends a signal against ubiquitous single-use products. That the two are so often treated as one is really unfortunate. Because if people actually cared about reducing their individual carbon emissions, they'd have to give up things like flying and eating meat, not disposable plastics. But that involves actual changes in behaviour, so it's not exactly popular and many people find the mere suggestion offensive.

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

#127

Post by baq »

kuu wrote: post #108
baq wrote: post #106

recommended related reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event "The event coincides precisely with a catastrophic decline in carbon dioxide levels, which fell from 3500 ppm in the early Eocene to 650 ppm during this event."

This event lasted for "800,000 years", based in the article.

exactly correct - compared to our situation where we have to get ~5% of it done in ~30 years, we're in trouble.

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

#128

Post by newyankee »

beefield wrote: post #39

TL;DR: We need dirt cheap energy. It would have a couple of benefits: First CCS would be feasible. Second if (non-fossil) energy is dirt cheap, nobody bothers digging fossil energy sources from ground. Third, there are always more fun things available when energy is cheap vs when energy is expensive) So, keep on pushing solar and try to make nuclear competitive with something like small modular reactors, they are pre…

I mean if so called wonder materials like Graphene can actually be harnessed to make new generation ultra cheap solar cells may be something might happen.

What we need actually is a Global Manhattan project which focuses on something like the 100 most promising approaches and builds and tests prototypes. This should be funded both by Govts. and the rich individuals. I think sharing of intellectual property can do a lot of good in solving the Carbon free energy conundrum and then getting it cheap enough for everything else. My guess is that a project like this can deliver solution(s) 10-20 years before free market will.

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

#129

Post by philbarr »

acd wrote: post #120

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 t…

How would this "circular sustainable economy" work?

People tend to think of there being only two versions of the economy available - the government tells us what stuff to make, or free markets determine what we make.

We would need a way of incentivising re-use, and of incentivising companies to make things re-usable. Currently the only way to make more money is to make and sell more stuff.

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

#130

Post by grive »

aforwardslash wrote: post #99
wwweston wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The people who subscribe to that belief have no idea beyond "plastic = bad" So... you're saying that there's not an accumulation of plastic waste / microplastics in the environment, or that we know any impacts or benign or negligible? Good news if true, would like to know what position there's the most credible evidence for. > and "landfills = bad". I'm a fan of consumer goods, so naturally it's convenient for me i…

Most western countries have proper regulation regarding waste disposal. Plastic pollution is a big is a big issue, but wont be solved while big economies decide to export their waste to places with less strict regulations. This is - in my opinion - the point that needs pressure from conscious citizens. We are only now starting to measure up the microplastics impact and their origin. Switching to reusable cups is a dr…

> Most western countries have proper regulation regarding waste disposal.

> wont be solved while big economies decide to export their waste

Western countries do not have proper regulations if one of the possible outcome for waste is to be exported where those regulations do not exist.

Post reply on HN