Carbon removal and other geoengineering solutions to climate change just don’t sit right with me. They seem like they give polluters a permission to keep on going as they were, and leave dealing with CO2 output to a magical future technology that may or may not ever even actually exist on a large scale
Interesting graph. Surprising that sequestration in agriculture is projected to have such a big effect, but apparently at relatively high cost per CO2 equivalent.
I do note that the “cost lower than reference” part of agriculture mostly means “stop eating animals” because that lets you move a huge amount of agricultural land into afforestation.
Carbon removal and other geoengineering solutions to climate change just don’t sit right with me. They seem like they give polluters a permission to keep on going as they were, and leave dealing with CO2 output to a magical future technology that may or may not ever even actually exist on a large scale
That’s definitely how it has been marketed. CDR is a small and expensive piece of what needs be done over the next few years:
Interesting graph. Surprising that sequestration in agriculture is projected to have such a big effect, but apparently at relatively high cost per CO2 equivalent.
I do note that the “cost lower than reference” part of agriculture mostly means “stop eating animals” because that lets you move a huge amount of agricultural land into afforestation.