They should do it with ocean water instead, as water has 50x's more carbon than the atmosphere.
Also, fossil fuels companies are going to cite the work funded by the government to continue spewing pollution. Mark my words.
this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2023
24 points (100.0% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5189 readers
730 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Would that be done through mineralizing the carbon that's dissolved in the water? I remember hearing about some mineral you could spread in the water that would react with the carbon. I wonder what it would take to produce and spread that at scale with a low re-emission rate.
There is discussion around enhanced rock weathering, but none of it is a proved technology at this point, even at pilot scale, in the way that direct air capture is.
That’s a bingo!
Interesting, but there's no mention in the article of the $/ton CO2 they will pay that I could see.
Presumably it will have to be close to the market (say $100 $/ton today?).
If they go lower there will be no uptake, if they go much higher they will burn through the $3.5B and only achieve a short blip in the market for no real long term benefit.
But I imagine $3.5B used carefully might have some interesting effects.
Edit: I'm not sure $3.5B is the relevant number (but the only one quoted in the article).
So having trees will earn you money? /s