Join me Friday noon Eastern on the Sustain What webcast to explore communication strategies around climate and clean-energy action with environmental p.r. guru David Fenton.
Andy, have you covered schemes for taking CO2 out of the atmosphere? I heard a story on NPR awhile back on this. It sounded like the technology worked, but would have to be scaled WAY up to make a difference. Would welcome additional education on this.
Scale is the word that kills almost all climate solutions, CO2 capture included. The best articulation of the challenge was by Vaclav Smil in a conversation with me onstage long ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SIjlZQf28I I'm a big fan of supporting intensified research, development and demonstration because the economic case won't lead to adequate private efforts, but it's a heavy lift.
Smil seems to be talking about carbon capture at the point of emission.
The NPR story I'm referring to was about removing C02 from the atmosphere in general. The people involved just set up shipping containers with fans at both ends and ran the air over filters which collected the carbon. Then they pumped the collected carbon underground. They did agree that MANY more such setups would be required to make a meaningful difference. They did the math, but I can't recall it, other than it involved LOTS of shipping containers all over the place.
Point being, if money is the only obstacle, and climate change really is a crisis, where is the money?? My nerd brain is choking on the logic here. We probably spend 7 billion a year on popcorn, right?
I'm sure you know all about this, perhaps you can educate me further in a future article.
The impression I got from the NPR story (which could be wrong) is that the scaling up of C02 removal basically boils down to a question of money. LOTS more shipping containers filled with fans and filters etc.
So, if climate change is a crisis, where's the money? You know, where is the politician promising to radically grow funding for C02 removal in that politician's quest to get young people's votes? Why am I not hearing more about C02 removal? Ignorance on my part?
Is C02 removal really just a matter of money? How much money is needed? I'd be interested to learn more about this.
What appealed to me about C02 removal is that it's a technical fix, and that's what our culture is good at. Reducing C02 emissions requires change and sacrifice etc, which we're not so good at. As I recall the story, it claimed that meeting the climate change challenge will require both removing C02 AND reducing emissions, because neither is sufficient by itself.
I'm not qualified to have an opinion on any of this, I just find it interesting.
Thanks for the link to Markoff's great piece, which I missed. Yes, buzzword confusion is a big issue. Including the dread "Polar Vortex".. I talked about this on On The Media some years back but will do more for sure! https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/sucked-polar-vortex
Andy, have you covered schemes for taking CO2 out of the atmosphere? I heard a story on NPR awhile back on this. It sounded like the technology worked, but would have to be scaled WAY up to make a difference. Would welcome additional education on this.
Scale is the word that kills almost all climate solutions, CO2 capture included. The best articulation of the challenge was by Vaclav Smil in a conversation with me onstage long ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SIjlZQf28I I'm a big fan of supporting intensified research, development and demonstration because the economic case won't lead to adequate private efforts, but it's a heavy lift.
Smil seems to be talking about carbon capture at the point of emission.
The NPR story I'm referring to was about removing C02 from the atmosphere in general. The people involved just set up shipping containers with fans at both ends and ran the air over filters which collected the carbon. Then they pumped the collected carbon underground. They did agree that MANY more such setups would be required to make a meaningful difference. They did the math, but I can't recall it, other than it involved LOTS of shipping containers all over the place.
Point being, if money is the only obstacle, and climate change really is a crisis, where is the money?? My nerd brain is choking on the logic here. We probably spend 7 billion a year on popcorn, right?
I'm sure you know all about this, perhaps you can educate me further in a future article.
The impression I got from the NPR story (which could be wrong) is that the scaling up of C02 removal basically boils down to a question of money. LOTS more shipping containers filled with fans and filters etc.
So, if climate change is a crisis, where's the money? You know, where is the politician promising to radically grow funding for C02 removal in that politician's quest to get young people's votes? Why am I not hearing more about C02 removal? Ignorance on my part?
Is C02 removal really just a matter of money? How much money is needed? I'd be interested to learn more about this.
What appealed to me about C02 removal is that it's a technical fix, and that's what our culture is good at. Reducing C02 emissions requires change and sacrifice etc, which we're not so good at. As I recall the story, it claimed that meeting the climate change challenge will require both removing C02 AND reducing emissions, because neither is sufficient by itself.
I'm not qualified to have an opinion on any of this, I just find it interesting.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/18/science/weather-forecasts-language.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare. They say buzz words describing weather events are problematic. What do you think?
Thanks for the link to Markoff's great piece, which I missed. Yes, buzzword confusion is a big issue. Including the dread "Polar Vortex".. I talked about this on On The Media some years back but will do more for sure! https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/sucked-polar-vortex