You just have to spread rock powder over a Russia-sized area. Every year.
It's a starting point, though. As Randall Munroe put it, even if we aggressively limit CO₂ production today, we'd still face half an ice-age unit in warming. Reducing emissions isn't enough; we have to come up with some CO₂ removal method, and apply it, if we don't want to face global famine and disaster.You just have to spread rock powder over a Russia-sized area. Every year.
This project is well beyond our capacity for cooperation and organization in the timescale necessary. IMO a much more likely sequestration strategy is to engineer plants to more efficiently fix CO₂. There has been work to do this by modifying the RuBisCO enzyme reaction. The NIH just dropped a 10% allocation of its budget to AIDS/HIV research that has been in effect since the 90's. Carbon sequestration research might be a good candidate for similar funding.
I probably agree, but my fear is a whiplash effect. Plants are hard to get rid of, and Earth is in its cooling cycle right now. At the scale necessary to globally sequester enough carbon, a hundred years from now, those GMO plants are still sequestering, and we've created the opposite problem: anthropogenic ice age.engineer plants to more efficiently fix CO₂
This is what it takes for us to realize that efforts to mitigate climate change, like every other important decision, require a cost-benefit analysis. Randall Munroe tells us that the consequence of doing nothing is a giant question mark. The consequence of fertilizing Russia with stone dust is also a giant question mark. Predictions of environmental change are highly speculative and project a century or more into the future. Often, they do not even consider the possibility of benefit from the changes. Predictions of potential technological adaptations are beyond speculation, more like science fiction, even a few decades out. We won't be comfortable if we decide it's best to take only moderate actions now, and wait until the evidence is clearer, especially given that some kind of irreversible runaway effect could kill millions of people. But the firm decision to spend vast resources on climate change is a firm decision to not spend them on threats that kill millions of people today. That should make us uncomfortable.the researchers ballpark the cost of removing the first 50 parts per million of CO2 at hundreds of trillions of dollars—a number that exceeds the combined GDP of every country on Earth
I don't buy that logic. "You bought a new iPhone, you could have given that money to starving kids in Africa." Or, I could do both. In theory, you're right. In practice, resource allocation isn't that simple. Countries give so much philanthropically. Their environmental budgets may or may not be affected by their philanthropy. But it's not an either–or. Nobody is arguing we should spend more than the combined global GDP on carbon sequestration. We should do as much as reasonable, just like with charity. And, as with charity, we should do the most cost-productive thing. I also don't buy those numbers. That might be what it costs with today's technology. But we may discover a new way to sequester which costs 10% of that tomorrow. Or 1%. At this point, I absolutely argue we should put money toward researching better sequestration methods, not using existing ones. Typhoons Haiyan and Hagupit killed 7,000 and displaced 4,000,000 people in 2014. Flooding in the Solomon Islands displaced 52,000 people in 2014. The worst flooding in 50 years in the Jammu and Kashmir regions of India and Pakistan flooded 2600 villages, 390 of which were completely submerged, killing 1,300, and displacing over 1,100,000 now unable to work or grow food. A 7.5 magnitude earthquake in Nepal (climate change has been linked to tectonic activity) killed 9,000 people and displaced 2,800,000 this year. This year, the worst flooding Chennai, India has seen in a century destroyed 100,000 acres of crops, and displaced 1,000,000. This year, the deadliest heat wave in 35 years in southern India and Pakistan, in excess of 46°C, killed at least 4,500 and affected hundreds of millions. This year, monsoons in Burma and India have displaced 400,000. Drought in Ethiopia has left 8,200,000 people starving, killing huge numbers of livestock and reducing crop yields by 90%, this year. That number is expected to rise to 15,000,000 next year. Climate change is a threat that kills millions of people today. If we let it get to an ice-age unit, it will kill billions.But the firm decision to spend vast resources on climate change is a firm decision to not spend them on threats that kill millions of people today.
the researchers ballpark the cost of removing the first 50 parts per million of CO2 at hundreds of trillions of dollars—a number that exceeds the combined GDP of every country on Earth
hundreds of trillions of dollars
threats that kill millions of people today.
We agree that you cannot buy an iPhone and also give the same money to starving kids. Spending some dollars wisely does not justify spending other dollars unwisely. Cost-benefit analysis should help us spend each available dollar in the most effective way possible, which should take into consideration both the merit of the benefit and the certainty of obtaining it. It's a crude argument that merely tots up body counts, but as long as you have provided numbers: 1,300 flooding in the Jammu and Kashmir regions of India and Pakistan 9,000 earthquake in Nepal 4,500 deadliest heat wave in 35 years in southern India and Pakistan 400,000 drought in Ethiopia (if similar to 1980s drought) The total is 421,800. Let's assume that every one of these deaths is entirely due to climate change and would not have happened if effective climate change mitigation were in place. Compare to 500,000 deaths from malaria in 2013. Surely it is better to research better sequestration methods than to sprinkle stone dust in the jungle. But we should also consider the evidence that a child's life can be saved today for about $2,838. It's not a simple calculus. Malaria is unlikely to ever kill billions. But the person who figures out how to lick the carbon problem might be a two-year-old kid in Malawi right now."You bought a new iPhone, you could have given that money to starving kids in Africa." Or, I could do both.
Climate change is a threat that kills millions of people today.
7,000 typhoons Haiyan and HagupitBut we may discover a new way to sequester which costs 10% of that tomorrow. Or 1%. At this point, I absolutely argue we should put money toward researching better sequestration methods, not using existing ones.
Good point, we just don't know! No doubt we should spend some money on research. For the price of two or three dead children a week, we can keep the scientist busy in the lab. Is it crass and heartless to express it that way, or is it crass and heartless to say we must budget for research without mentioning the opportunity cost? It's still a long shot. Maybe there is no good solution, and future generations will just have to deal with it. Sorry, kids! But the scientist probably has a better chance of getting good results than some random toddler. A difference we should remember, though: if we fund the scientist, she can work on researching climate change instead of researching plate tectonics (which seems to be a bit of a fuzzy science, at the moment). If we fund the toddler, she can have a fifth birthday and learn to play soccer, instead of ... not.
I find the majority of environmental engineering propositions terrifying.
They did at least estimate the math on that question :It sounds from the article as if they haven't done the math on that yet
With current technology, that means greenhouse gas emissions involved in running this scheme would offset something like 8 to 33 percent of your CO2 drawdown.