Thread by @n_thanki

🔥 As more people realise that the climate crisis is worse than predicted, some will turn to tech to save us. "Carbon Dioxide Removals" (CDR) in particular are being pushed as a solution. Here's why that would be a catastrophic mistake for #ClimateJustice atmos.earth/carbon-dioxide…

💸 In reality, CDR is a providing lifeline for the fossil fuel industry. Pollute now, clean up later! Which is also how the US justifies increasing fossil fuel production - they are simultaneously investing billions in CDR. corporateeurope.org/en/DeadlyClima…

❌CDR technologies are not a tool to avoid 1.5C warming. They are speculative technologies that would be used to lower temperature rise *after* we overshoot that threshold. Investing in renewables & reducing emissions NOW is a more effective solution. ciel.org/wp-content/upl…

🌲The cost of scaling CDR would be much higher than investing in renewables & the most obvious process of removing Co2 (planting trees) requires large amounts of land (more than we have) while threatening human rights & communities landgap.org

💡Removing just one gigaton of CO2 (2.5% global CO2 emissions) with tech removals like Direct Air Capture requires about 3700 terawatt hours of electricity, more than what the European Union produces in a year peopleandnature.wordpress.com/2020/11/13/car…

Direct Air Capture also needs a LOT of water (27 tons for every ton of CO2 removed) and involves the use of toxic chemicals foodandwaterwatch.org/wp-content/upl…

🧪With other forms of CDR there's also a risk to ecosystems (in what world is dumping 1,000 tons of urea into the sea to try an force phytoplankton growth a risk-free idea?) Plus the small issue of ensuring the carbon will actually stay out of the atmosphere after it’s removed.

Some activists use all these negatives as justification for further research into CDR and for engaging in policy debates to "ensure safeguards". They dismiss concerns as ideological, and say the severity of the climate crisis justifies extreme measures.

The problems with this line of thinking are pretty obvious. 1) The severity of the climate crisis can, and will in our lifetime, be used to cover heinous policies that harm the most marginalised. 2) Corporate interests always shape research & findings. CDR is already a business!

Engaging in debates around safeguards is a strategic error for the climate movement. There's always a need for damage limitation in policy spaces, but IT IS A LOSING FIGHT. We should oppose CDR and the dead end market-logic it is intrinsically linked to theguardian.com/environment/20…

Many activists already understand this and see how CDR exists on a continuum of climate change denial and carbon colonialism. It's worth listening to them and their critique rather than dismissing it with fossil fuel industry talking points. Panganga Pungowiyi of @IENearth:

“Our lands were sacrifice zones for the extractive industries that caused the climate crisis. Now, these so-called solutions will perpetuate this historical injustice. They want to maintain control over our resources and lands and bodies while telling us it is for our own good.”

Or @NnimmoB, who clearly articulates the strategic error of giving any room to CDR proposals: "There can be no safeguards if my land is going to be colonized or if I’m forced into carbon slavery because my lands and seas are turned into carbon burial grounds.”

Why are we letting ourselves be seduced by CDR technologies, especially when other options exist? Who does that benefit? What are the political and economic interests behind CDR and other geoengineering approaches? solargeoeng.org/economic-inter…

We must rapidly cut emissions. This entails curtailing and phasing out fossil fuel production as @fossiltreaty proposes. There will still be too much CO2 in the atmosphere, but we can only safely remove a very small amount over a long period of time theconversation.com/no-more-excuse…