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

U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 347 posts

Re: U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere

#231

Post by rcxdude »

DantesKite wrote: post #146
GOONIMMUNE wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does "leaving it in the ground" get us back to 280 ppm?

It's not clear to me 280ppm is actually ideal, because below 150ppm, most plant life on Earth begins to die from the lack of CO2 in the atmosphere. It takes a couple generations for plants to adapt (which they can), but I don't imagine most crops and forests will survive the transition well. I actually think where we're at is relatively decent. We know what's happening, can reliably predict certain storms. Definitely…

There is a substantial time lag between the concentration of carbon changing and the climate reaching its new equilibrium. Even if we stopped emitting carbon today the warming would continue for some time. So if you're OK with what it's like today then you still need to take some carbon out of the atmosphere to keep it like this.

Re: U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere

#232

Post by MaxGanzII »

rcxdude wrote: post #228
MaxGanzII wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may be wrong, but I think the world population is growing more quickly than you portray, and will be for some decades yet, and we currently have far too many people for how we conduct ourselves as a species. I may also be wrong to think it, but I would expect if you halved the world population, assuming it was done equally across the world, you would indeed halve human carbon emissions; half as many people, half as…

Based on current trajectories, the world's population is not going to double again (or even increase by 50%), it will level off at about 10 billion and at that point perhaps start to shrink. It's possible this level is not sustainable with an acceptable standard of living, but it's not obvious and it certainly isn't inevitable that humanity will reproduce out of control.

I would say though that this is what I'm arguing.

The planet can't cope now - the environment is falling apart right now, already - and the mid-range estimate there's another two or three billion people to come over the next few decades.

There are estimates in excess of this, there are estimates lower. Estimates which have population declines see slow declines only.

I've not seen any real understanding of why the fertility rate is dropping, particularly in first world countries. That's a concern; what happens if the factors causing this to happen are transient?

That's part of why the estimates are only estimates, of course.

Re: U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere

#233

Post by aunty_helen »

PeterisP wrote: post #95
aunty_helen wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cant we see this from space? Estimate the amount of co2 coming from each country that way and send them a bill every year. My first thought was “that’s where auditing and bureaucracy come in” but maybe satellites are a better way

We can measure the total amount, but it's rapidly mixing and moving so we can't reliably allocate the CO2 production to states from space measurements, no. Furthermore, countries only are liable for the commitments to which they voluntarily agree in international treaties or get forced to agree with credible threats of excessive violence. As all the climate talks have clearly shown, no one is going to sign a treaty w…

>4 km2 (1.5 sq mi) or smaller, 3 times per second. Looks like there's accuracy enough to be able to model this. OCO-3 is apparently observing city level CO2 levels.

And the data is available (thanks NASA): https://oco2.gesdisc.eosdis.nasa.gov/data/OCO3_DATA/OCO3_L1B...

As for the human aspect, I think holding carbon trading countries to account when there's been a treaty signed and a financial incentive to do so isn't too far fetched.

I also think as the world gets a bit more desperate there will be more motivation. I personally would like to see sanctions on products (like Brazilian beef) but probably that's dreaming.

Re: U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere

#234

Post by spywaregorilla »

mikesabbagh wrote: post #37

Maybe instead of paying 100$ for a ton of CO2 captured, add a CO2 tax of few $ to every ton released

Ok, you just killed the US steel industry and several others. Massive amounts of manufacturing have moved to other industries to avoid the tax. US economy is now significantly less competitive. What's the next move?

Re: U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere

#235

Post by adam_arthur »

civilized wrote: post #71
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #51

Earlier 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…

Capturing it at the point of emission seems like it should be the priority. Way, way easier to get it at that point. But that would make fossil fuels more expensive, and we can't have that right? Maybe we should just massively subsidize point of emission carbon capture for fossil fuels. We need it for some use cases that renewables don't work for anyway (yet).

I suspect the public would be on board with these type of policies if the cost to the poor and middle class were subsidized.

Any legislation that increases cost of energy will impact poorest the most, but for some reason cost of energy to the poor is not brought up much in climate discussions.

And of course China is the biggest emitter by far, so something special needs to be done there. Likely first world countries would have to subsidize third world country energy costs.

Re: U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere

#236

Post by DantesKite »

rcxdude wrote: post #231
DantesKite wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not clear to me 280ppm is actually ideal, because below 150ppm, most plant life on Earth begins to die from the lack of CO2 in the atmosphere. It takes a couple generations for plants to adapt (which they can), but I don't imagine most crops and forests will survive the transition well. I actually think where we're at is relatively decent. We know what's happening, can reliably predict certain storms. Definitely…

There is a substantial time lag between the concentration of carbon changing and the climate reaching its new equilibrium. Even if we stopped emitting carbon today the warming would continue for some time. So if you're OK with what it's like today then you still need to take some carbon out of the atmosphere to keep it like this.

Yes I agree with you.

Re: U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere

#237

Post by listenallyall »

unilynx wrote: post #220
listenallyall wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol "5% pay cut". Classic ivory tower, wealthy first-world thinking. 4 trillion dollars is $500 per person on earth, which is more than the annual wages for a significant percentage. Energy cost increases put vastly more of the burden on low-income individuals due to the demand inelasticity of heat, fuel, light.

But GP didn't say it had to be distributed evenly, but referred to a 5% of GDP expense. That's 5% of income, whether it's $1000 or $100000.

Of course it won't be distributed evenly, that is the point. Just like always, energy cost increases harm poor people the most.

If you are in USA, has the government absorbed the increase in energy prices? Of course not. It costs everyone more to pay their heating bill or buy gasoline than just a year ago. Wealthy people can afford it. Poor people cannot. And the energy spikes also contribute to the huge inflation in food and everyday goods, once again hurting poor people the most.

That's the most basic of examples. Reality hits in many ways. Poor people generally have to travel much further to work every day. No matter whether they take public or private transportation, when fuel costs go up, maintenance drops... routes get cancelled, cars break down, tolls go up, whatever.

Or employment goes away entirely. Are mines, factories, construction projects still profitable when energy costs spike? Some yes, some no.

Re: U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere

#238

Post by guiriduro »

DennisP wrote: post #225
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #51

Earlier 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…

Bear in mind that (a) you're just pulling it from the atmosphere and burying it, not splitting the C from O2 so you can use it as fuel again, and (b) there are applications like long-haul jets and cement production where eliminating emissions isn't that easy. To put some numbers on (a), David MacKay's book has some numbers[1]: > The laws of physics say that the energy required must be at least 0.2 kWh per kg of CO2..…

> there are applications like long-haul jets and cement production where eliminating emissions isn't that easy.

I disagree, there's an easy solution to eliminating those emissions: have zero long-haul jets and zero cement production. Before this gets (inevitably) downvoted, the more interesting question is why do we need either, what alternatives are there, how fundamentally we're willing to question our biases and expectations over what counts as a necessity. If saving our environment is an overriding priority, then the extent of the compromises we have to make can be made clearer.

Re: U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere

#239

Post by q1w2 »

DennisP wrote: post #225
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #51

Earlier 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…

Bear in mind that (a) you're just pulling it from the atmosphere and burying it, not splitting the C from O2 so you can use it as fuel again, and (b) there are applications like long-haul jets and cement production where eliminating emissions isn't that easy. To put some numbers on (a), David MacKay's book has some numbers[1]: > The laws of physics say that the energy required must be at least 0.2 kWh per kg of CO2..…

I don't see how we're going to use CO2 as energy again. It's not like the original hydrocarbons we dug up.

Re: U.S. sets goal to drive down cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere

#240

Post by istjohn »

spywaregorilla wrote: post #234
mikesabbagh wrote: post #37

Maybe instead of paying 100$ for a ton of CO2 captured, add a CO2 tax of few $ to every ton released

Ok, you just killed the US steel industry and several others. Massive amounts of manufacturing have moved to other industries to avoid the tax. US economy is now significantly less competitive. What's the next move?

Just tax imports from countries that don't have an equivalent carbon tax.
Post reply on HN