Thread by @drvox

Negative emissions technologies (NETs) are absolutely serving as a permission structure to continue emitting GHGs. Just as CCS subsidies in the US will serve as a permission structure to continue politics/business as usual.

https://twitter.com/dwallacewells/status/1333124193651732480

All right fine a quick thread on this. The main job of reducing emissions is substituting clean techs for their dirty counterparts -- techs that produce the same goods & services, w/out the CO2 emissions. Some of those alternatives are mature & cheaper already (RE) ...

... while some are at the demonstration or even lab phase. But *even the techs that are mature & cheaper* are proving a challenge to substitute fast enough, because of politics. Again: we're having trouble *substituting something cleaner & cheaper* for the same work.

It is these challenges of substitution that put a "speed limit" on CO2 reductions. Because that speed limit is low, the models show that it won't be fast or complete enough, so to get to net zero in time requires supplementary negative emissions. Stipulated.

But think about what these models imply. Because we can't get our political shit together to even substitute alternative technologies that produce valuable goods & services, we're instead going to ...

... brute force to life a massive global tech infrastructure, 3X the size of the oil industry, which produces *no* valuable goods & services & instead is fueled entirely by public subsidies. I mean ... really? We can't get solar & wind spreading fast enough, but this we can do?

Politically speaking, it is many multiples more difficult & implausible than any substitution plan, no matter how aggressive. I've heard endless discussion of the tech but virtually nothing about how this political magic act is supposed to be achieved.

Why does the entire climate world seem to have simply nodded & accepted this? Because there's enormous social & political incentive to do so. If you believe this, carbon targets still look achievable. If you believe this, you can factor years & years more emitting ...

... into your model. It releases some of the political pressure, staves off some of the existential despair. Everyone has motive to go along. But if you don't think we're going to do this thing that's 10X as difficult as the other thing we can't do ...

... then it mostly looks like a permission structure, partly to keep emitting, but partly just to not panic & give up.

I have tons more to say on this but I wanna go walk my dogs so I'll just wrap up by emphasizing the main point:

Brute forcing this all-costs, no-return technology into a global behemoth 3X the size of the oil industry is wildly, wildly implausible -- never mind the tech, just politically. We need & will no doubt build some, but to the extent this fantasy distracts ...

... from the overwhelming, urgent priority to decarbonize existing tech & infrastructure, it's extremely dicey. This is true even though most people I know working in this area are entirely sincere & public-spirited. Once it grows & attracts money, bad actors will flock to it.

Shorter: the answer to the politically difficult task of rapid decarbonization is almost certainly not going to be the politically much MORE difficult task of building global CCS infrastructure. If we can't do the former, no reason to think we can do the latter.</fin>

Now, instead of reading all the angry replies, I'm gonna go take advantage of the rare sunlight & walk my dogs & listen to my audiobook & pretend the world isn't F'd.