While United Nations delegates wrap up this year’s climate summit, observers and experts have been coming to terms with an extremely inconvenient implication of meeting the goal of the Paris climate accord.
Meeting the accord’s goal of keeping global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius by 2100 requires technology, and the UN is essentially asking countries to literally suck carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere.
The Economist editorial board explains: “The Paris agreement assumes, in effect, that the world will find ways to suck CO2 out of the air” since “emissions cannot be cut fast enough to keep the total stock of greenhouse gases sufficiently small to limit the rise in temperature successfully.”
So, if you take the UN’s Paris accord projections seriously — and there are good reasons not to — just spending trillions of dollars more on green energy and energy efficiency isn’t enough. Paris accord proponents have tended to downplay this aspect of their global warming goal.
U.S. lawmakers recently heard testimony from geo-engineering proponents who agree with the UN that sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is necessary. The November hearing focused on carbon-sucking technology and stratospheric aerosol injection — literally shooting up particles into the high atmosphere to block sunlight.
Douglas MacMartin of Cornell University told lawmakers that sucking CO2 out of the air “is the only way to achieve net‐negative emissions,” which included “direct air capture” of carbon dioxide. MacMartin also mentioned carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, which removes greenhouse gas from fossil fuels when burned for electricity.
President Donald Trump in June pledged to withdraw from the Paris accord, but the administration has said it’s still committed to promoting CCS, natural gas and other forms of energy to lower emissions.
Energy Secretary Rick Perry signed a pledge to promote CCS with International Energy Agency chief Fatih Birol. Perry and Birol agreed to “support a renewed push for investment in carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) as an essential part of a clean energy future.”
The U.S. has spent lavishly on CCS technologies, but only one CCS coal project, the Petra Nova plant, is up and running. The Kemper coal plant in Mississippi has a CCS system but has opted to not use it and burn natural gas instead.
The European Union spent nearly $700 million over the last decade to build carbon capture and storage facilities — none of them were built because officials weren’t able to predict cap-and-trade pricing, news reports found.
There are 17 projects capturing carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion and storing it underground. But even if the world were to miraculously scale-up CCS technology, it would be extremely expensive.
A recent report by former World Bank adviser Gordon Hughes found “the economic analysis of CCS suggests that it is a technology that is both too late and too expensive in its current form.”
However, those who want to meet the Paris accord goals also suggest sucking carbon dioxide right out of the air. Sounds feasible, but The Economist brought up good points about why this technology may not work out.
“Direct air capture and enhanced weathering use less land, but both are costlier,” the editorial board wrote. “Though renewable energy could profitably generate a fair share of the world’s electricity, nobody knows how to get rich simply by removing greenhouse gases.”
In essence, you’d need a system of subsidies, a carbon tax, or a cap-and-trade system to get businesses to suck enough carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere to make it economical.
Higher energy prices aside, the next question becomes, where do you store it? And, is it safe to store carbon dioxide underground for long periods of time? How would all this be regulated?
Then there’s the biggest question of them all: At what level do we keep atmospheric concentrations of CO2?
These are all questions Paris accord proponents have to answer.
Read more at Daily Caller
Enviromentalisms a radical and dangerous new age pagan religion that demands to sacrifice of virgins,children our freedoms and soventry to their pagan idols
All of the comments are right about CO2 not being a problem as well as the solar minimum. However, just for the sake of argument let’s say global warming and CO2 were a problem. The most economical way to remove CO2 is with plants. Seeds are cheap.
The type of carbon capture that the article is talking about is dangerous when it comes to storage. Lake Nyos in Africa had natural carbon dioxide storage. In 1986 there was a suddenly released a huge cloud of carbon dioxide. Though in lower concentrations it is harmless in a concentrated form it is deadly. Everything from insects to people dropped dead where they were. The loss was 1,746 human lives.
Enviromentalisms like the anto drug commercials THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON DRUGS welll THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON ENVIROMENTALISM its FRIED like a Egg
How about we start by banning carbonated drinks like beer and pop and then move on to flash frozen foods and treats. Flash freezing uses thousands of tons of CO2 every day.
Other day, I passed a truckload of CO2 on the highway. I don’t think it was headed for “sequestration” . Too valuable!
Would everyone be willing to give up carbonated beverages? No meat, no gasoline diesel exhaust CO2 emissions, only walk or ride a bike, take the stairs, don’t exhale. Make it a competition until all enviro mentalists turn blue in the face and die off.
Sucking plant food, CO2, out of the air to suit a political agenda is the height of madness. Doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere might, I repeat might, increase temperature by 0.002 degree C. It is patently insane to spend a penny to lessen CO2 when, in fact, regardless of whether the climate is warming or cooling, the world, both nature and humans, will benefit form more CO2.
On top of that, we have no effect on CO2 in the atmosphere as the rate of atmospheric CO2 increase is linear and our CO2 emissions rise logarithmically, thus we are not having no effect. We also have no control over water vapor. And, methane and CO2 have a half-life in the atmosphere of about 5 years, which means they are quite dynamic and transient.
Meanwhile, these “wise” people ignore the solar minimum that is starting and the attendant cooling of the planet. It makes sense that they will be wailing louder and louder as their scam meets the forces of nature. They simply have to convince people to ignore the real world and believe them, with the Pope being totally complicit. The politicians have already sold their souls to the devil, they have to get the rest of us to follow them.
What a shame we can’t vaccinate against stupid.
Catch 22 Gerry. Too many environmentalists have become legislators.
Ok. Calling BS on this one. And would Someone please get these people some OXYGEN.
Compared to the “Converting all California to battery powered vehicles by 2030” scheme this is over the moon stupid! Building anything large enough to have an impact of just 0.0001% CO2 reduction would require apparatuses on scale exceeding the size of many California’s. All running night and day. And where is the energy coming from to power these apparatuses? Free renewable sustainable wind and solar energy? BS
What is more “ass”tounding is the scale of stupidity in the attempt. Reducing CO2 levels is the equivalent to chocking off the Earth’s oxygen supply and intentionally imperiling all oxygen breathers on the planet.
May be the time has come to look at legislation banning all wacko environmentalists.
I never tried LSD, but reading this article? Somebody’s hallucinating, ain’t me. It takes tons of energy to artificially replicate what vegetation does naturally.
The ones discussing this idea aren’t serious about proceeding, they’re feeding the Big Lie.
There are some economic carbon capture projects that use compressed CO2 from furnaces to revive old oil fields. Kinda ironic.
A larger mistake than failing to recognize that CO2 has no significant effect on climate is the potential tragedy of failing to attend to what is happening that actually does
The outrage Stupidity of enviromentalists and the Useless Nations no common sense in these UN idiots Enviromentalism breeds Stupidity