1/People who say that the new carbon-sucking technology is more expensive than simply limiting emissions seem to be missing something big: Nonlinearity.
theatlantic.com/science/archiv…
theatlantic.com/science/archiv…
2/The new technology allows carbon to be removed from the atmosphere for $250 per metric ton, and may lower that to $100 per metric ton in 5 years or so.
In contrast, the typical figure cited for the cost of preventing 1 metric ton of carbon from being emitted is $80.
In contrast, the typical figure cited for the cost of preventing 1 metric ton of carbon from being emitted is $80.
3/This has led some people to say that the new technology is more expensive than simply limiting emissions, and we should focus on limiting emissions instead of removing carbon.
On the margin, they're right.
But only on the margin.
On the margin, they're right.
But only on the margin.
4/The new technology scales linearly. You can remove as much carbon as you want, and the cost will stay at about $250/ton.
This means that to remove all the carbon we emit in one year would cost around $10 trillion, or around 13 percent of global GDP.
This means that to remove all the carbon we emit in one year would cost around $10 trillion, or around 13 percent of global GDP.
5/Now imagine we instead reached 0 carbon emissions by immediately cutting all emissions to 0.
No natural gas power. No coal power. No gasoline. No jets. No ship fuel. No diesel.
I promise you, that would reduce global GDP by a LOT more than 13 percent!!
No natural gas power. No coal power. No gasoline. No jets. No ship fuel. No diesel.
I promise you, that would reduce global GDP by a LOT more than 13 percent!!
6/This is because unlike the new carbon removal technology, emissions limitation is NONLINEAR. The first ton of carbon emissions limitation might cost $80, but the last ton will cost a hell of a lot more than $80!!
7/Now, note that I'm assuming the new carbon removal technology scales linearly. It requires natural resources like limestone, so that assumption might not be precisely true.
BUT, it seems clearly much LESS nonlinear than the cost of emissions limitation!
BUT, it seems clearly much LESS nonlinear than the cost of emissions limitation!
8/To reiterate:
Full decarbonization with new technology: GDP goes down by ~1/8
Full decarbonization by halting fossil fuel burning: Global economy crashes utterly and millions upon millions starve to death.
Full decarbonization with new technology: GDP goes down by ~1/8
Full decarbonization by halting fossil fuel burning: Global economy crashes utterly and millions upon millions starve to death.
9/So, if we want FULL decarbonization, instead of just a bit of emission reductions on the margin, it seems clear that carbon removal, not just emissions limitation, will be a big part of that solution.
(end)
(end)
If we wanted full decarbonization tomorrow, we'd need lots of carbon removal.
If instead we want to wait 30 years til batteries totally replace all fossil fuels, and then get rid of the carbon we burned in the meantime, we'll need...lots of carbon removal.
If instead we want to wait 30 years til batteries totally replace all fossil fuels, and then get rid of the carbon we burned in the meantime, we'll need...lots of carbon removal.
Oh, and note that my thread has an error in it. The cost of preventing one ton of carbon emissions is actually lower than $80 ($80 is the estimated *benefit*).
But again, this is on the MARGIN. The entire logic of the thread still holds; the $80 number was just for illustration.
But again, this is on the MARGIN. The entire logic of the thread still holds; the $80 number was just for illustration.
BUT, assuming the carbon removal technology holds up, we now know that we're going to beat this thing.
We're going to save both the planet AND our advanced industrial civilization.
(actual end)
We're going to save both the planet AND our advanced industrial civilization.
(actual end)
