How much does a solar shade cost?
U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere
101–110 of 347 posts
Re: U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's probably still cheaper to avoid emitting the CO2 in the first place, but that does put an upper bound on the cost of reaching net zero. It seems hard to believe that removing CO2 from the atmosphere could ever be less expensive than not emitting it to begin with. You're working against thermodynamics. So the whole thing seems like a fraud. An excuse to keep emitting CO2 while claiming that you'll do something…
> It seems hard to believe that removing CO2 from the atmosphere could ever be less expensive than not emitting it to begin with. This is the "get rich by saving money" fallacy. Imagine all the CO2 of a century of industrial development had not been emitted. We'd be enjoying a life without man-made climate change, but also without any of the amenities of modern life. Consider that air-to-fuel companies are pretty clo…
> Imagine all the CO2 of a century of industrial development but also without any of the amenities of modern life.
Most people on earth still live in conditions that are nowhere near the kind of development you are likely enjoying. They are also those who will feel the effects of man-made climate change most.
That is why this argument falls flat. We didn't buy this kind of living standard with some future self-inflicted suffering: your amenities of modern life are bought with the suffering of others.
But the deal is done and over. Now a debt is owed.
Re: U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also hard to believe that insurance against theft could ever be less expensive than nobody stealing anything, but that doesn't imply insurance is a fraud to allow people to carry on stealing. We live in a world where theft and carbon emissions are going to happen with or without the blessing of the US government, so if they want to spend some money seeing how far they can mitigate the damage then good. I'd rathe…
The problem is that it's still political magic. Suppose it costs $1 to avoid emitting CO2 (e.g. replace gas car with electric car) and $10 to extract the CO2 after the fact. If you get the latter down to $3, you're still upside down. So where does the $3 come from? Presumably a government, but it doesn't even matter. Anyone would still be better off spending that money to subsidize electric cars or solar panels or so…
> Suppose it costs X to do Y
Don't. You can't predict prices like that. Consider that electric cars roll out of the factory having emitted more CO2 than the equivalent combustion vehicle. It takes a lot of miles to break even. If you put a price on the CO2, you may well figure out that combustion engines end up more efficient, because carbon-neutral fuel is close to being economical.
> But then they'd still be better off spending that money to subsidize electric cars or solar panels or something.
This is a huge mistake. Don't pick winners. You don't have better information than the market.
Re: U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's probably still cheaper to avoid emitting the CO2 in the first place, but that does put an upper bound on the cost of reaching net zero. It seems hard to believe that removing CO2 from the atmosphere could ever be less expensive than not emitting it to begin with. You're working against thermodynamics. So the whole thing seems like a fraud. An excuse to keep emitting CO2 while claiming that you'll do something…
It's also hard to believe that insurance against theft could ever be less expensive than nobody stealing anything, but that doesn't imply insurance is a fraud to allow people to carry on stealing. We live in a world where theft and carbon emissions are going to happen with or without the blessing of the US government, so if they want to spend some money seeing how far they can mitigate the damage then good. I'd rathe…
It seems like you’re assuming our current culture stays constant. I’m pretty sure it’s going to change quite drastically after we have our first million+ death heat wave. It’s going to suddenly seem a hell of a lot more tacky to be driving a huge Chevy Tahoe.
Which is to say that things that seem impossible politically might suddenly become very politically possible.
Re: U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess you need to plant X trees, wait Y years for them to accumulate Z carbon and then bury all the trees M meters underground to stay there forever.
"Forever" is over ambitious. I'd pile them up in some desert. Should last a few centuries.
Until they catch fire and release that CO2 right back into the atmosphere.
We’ve seen this happen with carbon capture programs already.
Re: U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere
#106I thought a recent study showed the most effective/cheap method of reducing CO2 was very simple: plant a lot of trees. Like, really.
Re: U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere
#107> The Department of Energy's Carbon Negative Earthshot seeks to slash the cost of carbon removal to $100 a tonne by the end of the decade At 40 gigatonnes a year, that would be $4 trillion, which is about 5% of Gross World Product.[0] It's probably still cheaper to avoid emitting the CO2 in the first place, but that does put an upper bound on the cost of reaching net zero. Of course, no one wants to take a voluntary…
More importantly, having an actual price tag on removing carbon from the atmosphere would allow carbon markets to finally work. Assuming there is enough political will to properly monitor and tax CO2 emissions worldwide, which is a huge ask. A lot of companies and countries will be tempted to lie because it will make their products more competitive.
Global CO2 taxes would be augmented with CO2 tariffs, imposed on countries that didn't impose the taxes or tariffs.
Re: U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It seems hard to believe that removing CO2 from the atmosphere could ever be less expensive than not emitting it to begin with. This is the "get rich by saving money" fallacy. Imagine all the CO2 of a century of industrial development had not been emitted. We'd be enjoying a life without man-made climate change, but also without any of the amenities of modern life. Consider that air-to-fuel companies are pretty clo…
> Imagine all the CO2 of a century of industrial development but also without any of the amenities of modern life. Most people on earth still live in conditions that are nowhere near the kind of development you are likely enjoying. They are also those who will feel the effects of man-made climate change most. That is why this argument falls flat. We didn't buy this kind of living standard with some future self-inflic…
I get that, but what are the implications? Consider that the vast majority of CO2 emissions today are coming from the countries that are still developing to that standard we enjoy. We have no right to ask them to cut down. Therefore, we have no choice but to invest into sequestration, because that's the only way to pay down that "debt".
Re: U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere
#109[deleted]
Re: U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere
#110At a first read, this is great, because it's apolitical. It's about innovation, and is positive, I.e. doing something instead of telling people not to do something. For once this seems like something a government should be doing. I'm almost suspicious I missed something.
> it's apolitical
Managing access and impact on shared resources like the environment is political to the maximum level.
> It's about innovation, and is positive
Innovation is not automatically positive. The idea that technology can magically solve all problems is techno-optimism and it's a very ideological position.
> is positive, I.e. doing something instead of telling people not to do something
Telling people not to do something is not negative.