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

Potential large-scale CO2 removal via enhanced rock weathering with croplands

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 93 posts

Re: Potential large-scale CO2 removal via enhanced rock weathering with croplands

#81

Post by ISL »

ianai wrote: post #73
jaybrendansmith wrote: post #71

So. US $150 per ton, so $150B per gigaton. We must ultimately remove 1,000 gigatons of CO2, but we need to start with 10/year. Using this method will cost the world $1.5 trillion per year. That seems completely within our resources. What's stopping us?

I really wonder the same thing. I know I’m at a tail of the distribution, but I could see committing 150/mo of my own funds to sequestering co2. I’ve heard it posited that for one or another reason climate change could create a dictatorial regime one or another way. I hope humanity figures out a way to pull our collective heads out of the sand and start doing stuff before anything like a dictator kicks up...

There are sequestration projects out there already, as well as reforestation efforts. If you want to put your $150/mo to work today, you can!

One might also consider putting that $150 toward eliminating inefficiencies somewhere in the world -- subsidizing renewable power or improving fuel efficiency in some way.

Re: Potential large-scale CO2 removal via enhanced rock weathering with croplands

#82

Post by ISL »

GVIrish wrote: post #62
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are missing the point. The fact that we are headed toward refugee crisis and Miami being underwater doesn't change the incentives and game theory aspect of it. If emissions are expensive to remove and there is no way to globally ensure that nearly everybody pays for their emissions then nobody is going to pay for any of their emissions and will just invest in mitigating the problems locally even if that's not the…

> Any country that tries to make its people pay the actual cost of their emissions without the rest of the world doing the same will quickly see regime change because people aren't gonna waste a bunch of resources pissing in the wind like that. Yes it is the classic tragedy of the commons scenario, and frequently that is the argument brought up whenever countries talk about climate change action. "Why should I reduce…

The answer to the "Why should I, if someone else isn't doing as good a job?" : It is our collective planet. It is on each of us to own the entire problem and lead.

Re: Potential large-scale CO2 removal via enhanced rock weathering with croplands

#83

Post by ph0rque »

mrfusion wrote: post #34

Is there any research on what the ideal co2 level is? I’m on the climate change team of course but is there a risk we overshoot and bring co2 too low? I’d just say we should know what we’re aiming for. I guess plants like some amount of extra co2 so we’d think about that. Should we also have some kind of buffer between a future ice age? Don’t get me wrong, I think bring the co2 level close to zero is a viable argumen…

If we approach that level, we can easily implement a mitigation: controlled burning (on a far greater scale than is currently practiced).

Re: Potential large-scale CO2 removal via enhanced rock weathering with croplands

#84

Post by steve_adams_86 »

perfunctory wrote: post #20
steve_adams_86 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t disagree that we have the technology to emit less pollution simply by doing less (the moral decisions in this hypothetical), but the issue is that most (perhaps nearly all) people in the world don’t agree with your morality. This makes technologies which bypass this problem far more feasible, even if they’re further out from actually solving the problem. They might have the potential to get there, whereas mor…

> How do you argue morality with someone who is just trying to feed themselves? Don't change the subject. I am not arguing morality with someone who's trying to feed themselves. I am arguing morality with someone who flies to tech conferences several times a year, drives around in a huge SUV, and screams bloody murder when someone else proposes maybe a carbon tax or something. And then blames it all on poor people. P…

You’re right, that is a glaring issue and to me it’s indisputable. It cuts all ways though. Targeting the rich alone just isn’t sufficient. I didn’t mean to imply poor people are the only problem at all - just that pleading for moral decisions with the bulk of the earth’s population would be futile.

One of my greatest fears is that I’m right, so I genuinely hope I’m not.

Re: Potential large-scale CO2 removal via enhanced rock weathering with croplands

#85

Post by philipkglass »

jaybrendansmith wrote: post #71

So. US $150 per ton, so $150B per gigaton. We must ultimately remove 1,000 gigatons of CO2, but we need to start with 10/year. Using this method will cost the world $1.5 trillion per year. That seems completely within our resources. What's stopping us?

The same thing that has slowed efforts to curb emissions before they need removal: the free rider problem, or collective action problem. Every country benefits a little from one country's efforts to remove atmospheric CO2, and the non-participating countries don't pay anything. There's an incentive for every country to wait for some other country to take up the burden first.

That said, I think that the cost of accelerated silicate weathering could drop significantly with further advances in automation. At some point individual governments or well funded NGOs may be able to make a dent in the global problem without waiting for everyone else to cooperate.

Re: Potential large-scale CO2 removal via enhanced rock weathering with croplands

#86

Post by simonebrunozzi »

emteycz wrote: post #77
ianai wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really wonder the same thing. I know I’m at a tail of the distribution, but I could see committing 150/mo of my own funds to sequestering co2. I’ve heard it posited that for one or another reason climate change could create a dictatorial regime one or another way. I hope humanity figures out a way to pull our collective heads out of the sand and start doing stuff before anything like a dictator kicks up...

To the GP asking what's stopping us: 150 usd per month is a quarter of average wage here.

You're correct, but let's say the target is 1/10th of it, or $15/month, therefore affordable by many. Still, there's something that prevents us, as a society, from doing it.

Re: Potential large-scale CO2 removal via enhanced rock weathering with croplands

#87

Post by philipkglass »

jokoon wrote: post #3

I don't like those kind of projects because they sort of try to bank on the global warming problem with inventions and new things, except this doesn't work, because CO2 is just too hard to eliminate. It's the penultimate problem of industrialized capitalism: "we have a problem and we need to MAKE something new to solve this". But the problem was always the excess of industry in the first place. The solution is simple…

It's a problem of fossil fuel combustion [1], not capitalism. The per-capita CO2 emissions of the USSR were also above the presently sustainable level for Earth's 7.8 billion people.

[1] And land use changes, larger herds of ruminant food animals, high altitude airplane contrails... But mostly fossil fuel combustion.

Re: Potential large-scale CO2 removal via enhanced rock weathering with croplands

#88

Post by ianai »

simonebrunozzi wrote: post #86
emteycz wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To the GP asking what's stopping us: 150 usd per month is a quarter of average wage here.

You're correct, but let's say the target is 1/10th of it, or $15/month, therefore affordable by many. Still, there's something that prevents us, as a society, from doing it.

Well I’ve seen at least one crowd fund project to sequester co2. It wasn’t particularly impressive scale though iirc.

Re: Potential large-scale CO2 removal via enhanced rock weathering with croplands

#89

Post by perfunctory »

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #84
perfunctory wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do you argue morality with someone who is just trying to feed themselves? Don't change the subject. I am not arguing morality with someone who's trying to feed themselves. I am arguing morality with someone who flies to tech conferences several times a year, drives around in a huge SUV, and screams bloody murder when someone else proposes maybe a carbon tax or something. And then blames it all on poor people. P…

You’re right, that is a glaring issue and to me it’s indisputable. It cuts all ways though. Targeting the rich alone just isn’t sufficient. I didn’t mean to imply poor people are the only problem at all - just that pleading for moral decisions with the bulk of the earth’s population would be futile. One of my greatest fears is that I’m right, so I genuinely hope I’m not.

I totally share your fears. I am afraid we are already too late. Though, pleading for moral decisions seems to have worked in the past. Again, see civil rights movement, women's suffrage etc. Let's just hope it will work again, and that it won't be too late.

Re: Potential large-scale CO2 removal via enhanced rock weathering with croplands

#90

Post by steve_adams_86 »

perfunctory wrote: post #89
steve_adams_86 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re right, that is a glaring issue and to me it’s indisputable. It cuts all ways though. Targeting the rich alone just isn’t sufficient. I didn’t mean to imply poor people are the only problem at all - just that pleading for moral decisions with the bulk of the earth’s population would be futile. One of my greatest fears is that I’m right, so I genuinely hope I’m not.

I totally share your fears. I am afraid we are already too late. Though, pleading for moral decisions seems to have worked in the past. Again, see civil rights movement, women's suffrage etc. Let's just hope it will work again, and that it won't be too late.

Those are very good points, you're right. Here's hoping.

I guess the best thing we can do is normalize these behaviours by making the moral decisions ourselves and encouraging the same within our family and peer groups. Just like those movements before us. Stop flying, stop buying things wrapped in plastic upon plastic upon plastic, cycle more places, eat more plants and less meat, etc – the 'drip in the ocean' strategy might be all we have, but you're right... It has helped before. There's no sense in discouraging that.

Post reply on HN