|
Captain Fargle posted:What are the most effective forms of carbon sequestration now anyway? Would global reforestation projects have a noticeable effect for example? It's been posted a few times previously in this thread, but this European Academies' Science Advisory Council report on negative emissions technologies has a nice rundown of current possibilities written in a fairly accessible manner. Reforestation is in fact mentioned: EASAC posted:Reducing the rate of tropical deforestation has been long identified (see, for example, Stern, 2006) as one of the most effective and economic means of limiting emissions Reforestation and preventing deforestation are probably one of the easier carbon emission mitigation solutions. However even in the most idealized magical thinking scenario you're not getting above ~1 GtC sequestered per year (current annual emissions are equivalent to ~10 GtC). It's probably something we should do anyway, given that a lot of forests are already degrading due to climate change. In terms of the "best" carbon sequestration, it's probably still Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS, mentioned in the report). It's the best option in the sense that it exists, can scale, the costs are sort of understood and optimistically starts becoming economically viable with a carbon price of >$150/tCO2 IIRC. However you're still looking at a double-digit percentage of global GDP to sequester a fraction of current emissions. The main point is that significant atmospheric CO2 sequestration is still pie-in-the-sky thinking, and is not worth implementing at any scale until we decarbonize. The upcoming IPCC report apparently will discuss sequestration in great detail given the solidifying evidence that even 2C warming will be disastrous.
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 21:53 |
|
|
Nocturtle posted:It's been posted a few times previously in this thread, but this European Academies' Science Advisory Council report on negative emissions technologies has a nice rundown of current possibilities written in a fairly accessible manner. Reforestation is in fact mentioned: Well I can't plant a forest of my own but I followed through with the idea of getting some nice plants to shade my front window. Got four pots of bamboo and two trees. It'll take the bamboo a while to grow to the height I want but I'm super thrilled because they're gorgeous.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 17:54
|
|
|
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/25/methane-deathtrap-threatens-democracy/print/ Along those lines, The Economist newspaper only recently highlighted the methane issue for its mainstream readership. “The Methane Mystery: Scientists Struggle to Explain a Worrying Rise in Atmospheric Methane,” The Economist, April 28th 2018: “Keeping methane in check is therefore critical if a rise in temperature this century is to remain ‘well below’ 2°C relative to pre-industrial times, a goal set out in the Paris climate agreement of 2015… The explanations put forward by scientists range from the troubling to the truly hair-raising.” (Ed.-“Hair-raising” 100% correct.) Climate scientists have long sighted methane (CH4) bubbles rising to the surface in the Arctic for well over one decade now, especially along the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS). Problem: Methane eruptions are gradually turning into virtual monsters, getting bigger and wider (up to a half-mile across of rippling bubbles, according to Russian scientists), and potentially more dangerous and destructive, expanding more and more, in anticipation of a gigantic CH4 burp (maybe 50 gigatons suddenly vs. only 5 gigatons now in the atmosphere) followed by a massive global self-reinforcing planetary heat stroke. At that point in time, The Economist’s “methane mystery” reference will be solved via The Full Monty as CH4 takes a “selfie” in the form of a 50-gigaton burst. Not pretty! Unquestionably, methane could be a significant disruption to commonly accepted democratic, and autocratic, but especially democratic lifestyles, as well as one of the least understood threats in all of history, a dreaded “Black Swan Event,” or, in essence, a virtual deathtrap. Meantime, mainstream science is behind the “eight ball” re Arctic methane. According to an article in the American Association for the Advancement of Science (“AAAS”), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims Arctic methane will be “insignificant” throughout the century, as stated: “The IPCC considers the potential contribution of the ESAS into the emissions of CH4 as insignificant.” (Source: Russian Scientists Deny Climate Model of IPCC, Tomsk Poytechnic University, AAAS, 15 Aug 2017) What if the IPCC is dead wrong, thus misleading the public head first into a “Black Swan Event,” blindsided by one of the biggest potential human disasters in all history, maybe sooner rather than later.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 18:04
|
|
|
I'm honestly more concerned with how methane leaks are much much higher than reported, than by methane releases from thawing permafrost and subsurface arctic bubbles. But every bit contributes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 19:21
|
|
|
Wasn't there an infamous news conference with a stoic looking scientist who actually started to cry a bit when describing the sheer number of methane craters her research team had discovered in the Arctic ocean?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
sitchensis posted:Wasn't there an infamous news conference with a stoic looking scientist who actually started to cry a bit when describing the sheer number of methane craters her research team had discovered in the Arctic ocean? Here you go.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx1Jxk6kjbQ Your not going to sleep well tonight if you watch that...
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
Welcome friends, to perhaps the second time in history when a long-prognosticated, civilization-ending doomsday actually arrived. The Aztecs, and then us. And they only got lucky. We should be proud.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 00:30
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:1840s dummy fake woke activist: we simply need to personally reduce our personal individual cotton consumption. You're a republican, aren't you? If not, that's some amazing gymnastics
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 04:28
|
|
|
Trainee PornStar posted:Here you go.. Some of my worst memories are of striking up a conversation with ipcc contributors/hopefuls and seeing in their face that the stoicism and gravitas they switch into is a lack of ability to shed any more tears for the species
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 04:40
|
|
|
He has to come poo poo up this thread every once in a while to depressurize his cognitive dissonance a bit
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 04:40
|
|
|
Captain Fargle posted:What are the most effective forms of carbon sequestration now anyway? Would global reforestation projects have a noticeable effect for example? No. Every atom of carbon that goes into a tree is released when that tree dies and decomposes. Reforestation will help somewhat up until the point where all the land that can be reforested is reforested. It's a onetime deal where once a tract of land has locked in all the carbon it can, ie it has all the trees that can live on it, there is no further effect. The young trees sucking up carbon is offset by the old trees dying. To create a meaningful long term effect you have to cut down the trees and do something to stop them decomposing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 06:03
|
|
|
Reforestation is still a very good and cool thing to do, for different reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 06:26
|
|
|
Vegetation as carbon sequestration was a one-time miracle because no marmalade had yet evolved to decompose plant matter. That poo poo breaks down fast now, so we're hosed on that front.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 06:27
|
|
|
Bishounen Bonanza posted:No. Every atom of carbon that goes into a tree is released when that tree dies and decomposes. Reforestation will help somewhat up until the point where all the land that can be reforested is reforested. It's a onetime deal where once a tract of land has locked in all the carbon it can, ie it has all the trees that can live on it, there is no further effect. The young trees sucking up carbon is offset by the old trees dying. To create a meaningful long term effect you have to cut down the trees and do something to stop them decomposing. So what gets left behind as soil/mulch? Are you saying none of that is carbon? EDIT: Not trying to be snarky. Genuine question here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 10:03
|
|
|
Would it do any good to plant forests to grow and then cut down and replant, and use the wood for construction, since treated wood is essentially a form of locked carbon?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 13:58
|
|
|
Make a shitload of plastics so the fossil carbon doesn’t go into the atmosphere.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 14:08
|
|
|
Maybe the real climate change was in ourselves all along.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 15:24
|
|
|
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/first-commercial-co2-capture-plant-live-21494 Climeworks has opened the first negative emissions plant in Sweden. It takes CO2 out of the atmosphere and pumps it into greenhouses. They are hoping to get 1percent of CO2 carbon emmissions by 2025 with one plant. It cost 3-4 million to build, which isn't really that much. A couple more of those and a significant dent could be put in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Edit: https://qz.com/1100221/the-worlds-first-negative-emissions-plant-has-opened-in-iceland-turning-carbon-dioxide-into-stone/ A facility in Iceland that buries the emissions and they turn yo mineral deposits Edit edit: got the articles mixed up. The Climeworks facility is in Sweden, not Iceland friendbot2000 fucked around with this message at 16:00 on Jul 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 15:33
|
|
|
friendbot2000 posted:http://www.climatecentral.org/news/first-commercial-co2-capture-plant-live-21494 Given Iceland's tiny population this will make it the first country to be overall carbon negative won't it? EDIT: Reading the article your post is incorrect. The facility is in Switzerland, not Iceland.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 15:48
|
|
|
Captain Fargle posted:Given Iceland's tiny population this will make it the first country to be overall carbon negative won't it? Probably. I hope more of these plants are built. I plan to reach out to the company and the Gates foundation today to ask for more plants. There is a Canadian company that is doing something similar too and turning the CO2 into fuel? Not exactly sure how that works. I just want it out of our atmosphere.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 15:53
|
|
|
Captain Fargle posted:Given Iceland's tiny population this will make it the first country to be overall carbon negative won't it? You are right, got it mixed up with another facility in Iceland that is burying the CO2. Edit: fixed now
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 15:54
|
|
|
friendbot2000 posted:http://www.climatecentral.org/news/first-commercial-co2-capture-plant-live-21494 "In order to meet the goal of removing the equivalent of 1 percent of annual global carbon dioxide emissions, 250,000 similar direct-air capture plants would have to be built, Gebald said" E: $75 trillion for total carbon negation if prices were totally static would be still be worth it imo Car Hater fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Jul 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 16:00
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:"In order to meet the goal of removing the equivalent of 1 percent of annual global carbon dioxide emissions, 250,000 similar direct-air capture plants would have to be built, Gebald said" I am just full of silly mistakes today I guess *shrug*. Either way, it is a good start especially in conjunction with lowering emissions we put out annually. And I think there are 3 facilities that I know of! Edit: I agree, the pricetag is worth it! #joking friendbot2000 fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Jul 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 16:03
|
|
|
And all we have to do is appropriate the entire global economy for a year!
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 16:05
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:And all we have to do is appropriate the entire global economy for a year! Haha. Yeah, even a fraction of a hlobal percent is still better than nothing! The Climeworks plant could also help solve some of the food shortage problems we are going to see with climate change. CO2 fertilizer increases greenhouse crop yield significantly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 16:14
|
|
|
Captain Fargle posted:Given Iceland's tiny population this will make it the first country to be overall carbon negative won't it? Bhutan is carbon negative but I wonder how much longer that will be true. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/destinations/asia/bhutan/carbon-negative-country-sustainability/
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 16:24
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:"In order to meet the goal of removing the equivalent of 1 percent of annual global carbon dioxide emissions, 250,000 similar direct-air capture plants would have to be built, Gebald said" Global GDP is only ~$78 trillion per year. That is actually unaffordable, as in the global economy is not large enough to support such an effort. Even 10% of GDP will require a political upheaval of the like we've never seen before. The real figure of interest regarding this plant is it costs $400 per tCO2 sequestered, which is fine and in line with other negative emissions technologies but not exactly ground-breaking. $100-$200 per tCO2 would be exciting. Bishounen Bonanza posted:No. Every atom of carbon that goes into a tree is released when that tree dies and decomposes. Reforestation will help somewhat up until the point where all the land that can be reforested is reforested. It's a onetime deal where once a tract of land has locked in all the carbon it can, ie it has all the trees that can live on it, there is no further effect. The young trees sucking up carbon is offset by the old trees dying. To create a meaningful long term effect you have to cut down the trees and do something to stop them decomposing. The good news is we've decimated so much forested area over the past few hundred years that now a lot of carbon can potentially be sequestered in the near term via reforestation. How forward-thinking of us.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 16:27
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Global GDP is only ~$78 trillion per year. That is actually unaffordable, as in the global economy is not large enough to support such an effort. Even 10% of GDP will require a political upheaval of the like we've never seen before. I know. 😆
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 16:32
|
|
|
Yes, we'll build all of them at the exact same time and lose $75 trillion because all the contractors will promptly toss their money into a large ditch, maybe even burning it thereby literally increasing atmospheric CO2.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 16:32
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Global GDP is only ~$78 trillion per year. That is actually unaffordable, as in the global economy is not large enough to support such an effort. Even 10% of GDP will require a political upheaval of the like we've never seen before. The real figure of interest regarding this plant is it costs $400 per tCO2 sequestered, which is fine and in line with other negative emissions technologies but not exactly ground-breaking. $100-$200 per tCO2 would be exciting. Some of the articles regarding the Climeworks plant quote the companies projected costs going as low as $100 per metric ton once the factory ramps up. Edit: in 3-5 years is what Climeworks is claiming So both the facilities that Climeworks built in total take 950 metric tons of carbon emmissions out of the air annually. And from what I am reading the one in Iceland is just a pilot program to see if it works to store it in the Basalt layer. They only have 1 turbine there. 50 metric tons for one CC Unit is....pretty good. EDIT: THIS IS PRETTY loving COOL. A group is cleaning up the garbage islands in the Pacific with a autonomous "coastline". The first one is launching in September and is projected to halve the size of the Pacific Island in 5 years https://www.theoceancleanup.com/milestones/road-to-the-cleanup/ friendbot2000 fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Jul 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 16:45
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:You're a republican, aren't you? Absolutely not, but I do think it's a good analogy, you can't blame cotton for slavery, you can't boycott cotton to get out of slavery and ending slavery did not mean abandoning cotton nor cotton becoming more expensive or less accessible. The secret to ending slavery was to not do slavery anymore, people trying to tie it to personal responsibility or sinful failure to adhere to austerity were not the people that solved slavery.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 19:53
|
|
|
if you keep going down this road long enough eventually you realize you're just creating reverse oil wells and then you realize... oh... it'd be easier to just... stop the oil wells we have. neoliberalism is the belief that we can create an economy by pumping a barrel of oil, selling it for $100, paying $99 to capture and sequester it back underground, leveraging that arbitrage 50:1 and buying credit default swaps to hedge. StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Jul 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Absolutely not, but I do think it's a good analogy, you can't blame cotton for slavery, you can't boycott cotton to get out of slavery and ending slavery did not mean abandoning cotton nor cotton becoming more expensive or less accessible. The secret to ending slavery was to not do slavery anymore, people trying to tie it to personal responsibility or sinful failure to adhere to austerity were not the people that solved slavery. Are you insane? The abolitionist movement had no bearing on the abolition of slavery?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:Are you insane? The abolitionist movement had no bearing on the abolition of slavery? The ones that got distracted about marginally reducing their cotton footprint didn’t.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
You... you realize you can produce cotton without slaves? And that producing cotton without slaves meant either less output or less profit? So they were doing basically exactly that? It would be more accurate to say they were reducing (eliminating) their slavery footprint. Analogies are bad but if we're going to keep with it. Like even freeing your slave(s) after fifteen years of service or whatever definitely had a bearing on abolition as a whole.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 20:41
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:if you keep going down this road long enough eventually you realize you're just creating reverse oil wells If this ends up as a necessity then so be it. Geoengineering on a huge scale is going to become essential one way or another.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 21:02
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The ones that got distracted about marginally reducing their cotton footprint didn’t. This is so wrong that I, the person who had bad info on the Civil War and defended it by saying that it came from a green book with marbled pages printed "in the old days" feel safe in dunking on you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 21:22
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The ones that got distracted about marginally reducing their cotton footprint didn’t. PYF has a "pictures of cats" thread. There's not any reason for you to actually be here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 21:45
|
|
|
Captain Fargle posted:If this ends up as a necessity then so be it. Geoengineering on a huge scale is going to become essential one way or another.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 21:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 21:53 |
|
|
Captain Fargle posted:If this ends up as a necessity then so be it. Geoengineering on a huge scale is going to become essential one way or another. there's no if. it *is* necessary. It just doesn't make any sense to focus on it much while the up-wells are still running.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 21:56
|
|