440
World’s top climate scientists expect global heating to blast past 1.5C target
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 May 2024
440 points (97.8% liked)
News
23287 readers
3768 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Exactly. Methane too. There are countless engineering projects with potential for mitigation. VCs aren’t exactly lining up to “do good for the planet” without returns. Money caused the problem, just like money could address it.
Theres no such thing as clean fossil fuels, creating carbon dioxide is intrinsic to combustion energy.
What does that have to do with removal of CO2 and methane? There are plenty of solar, wind, wave, and salt powered removal solutions, as well as chemical.
http://arpa-e.energy.gov/technologies/exploratory-topics/direct-ocean-capture
Edit: Additional information on carbon conversion processes from further down in this thread
https://energy.stanford.edu/research/research-areas/carbon-removal/co2-conversion-use
https://news.mit.edu/2022/turning-carbon-dioxide-valuable-products-0907
Sorry, you said methane and i assumed you were talking about carbon capture from fossile fuel plants.
None of those are current solutions, step 1 is they release the co2 from the ocean. There is no step 2.
That’s simply not true. There are many models that convert it to bicarbonate or ethanol, building materials, bioplastics, or bind the carbon in solid form to be safely released back into the environment. The problem is they’re all expensive.
Oh, those werent in the link you provided, or in what i found looking at current carbon capture technology.
Search for “captured carbon conversion” to find out more about that step. Here are a few options, but there are countless more. We have many smart scientists that create solutions often. They rarely receive funding to take the initiatives out of the laboratory.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientist-discover-how-to-convert-co2-into-powder-that-can-be-stored-for-decades/
https://energy.stanford.edu/research/research-areas/carbon-removal/co2-conversion-use
https://news.mit.edu/2022/turning-carbon-dioxide-valuable-products-0907
Man they all talk about making carbon neutral fuel out of it. Taking the co2 out and putting it right back in
That’s from the Stanford link provided above.
Read the rest of that paragraph.
The only reason they’re leaning into fuel creation is to generate a profitable product to secure funding. There are many more responsible ways to convert the carbon that would cost more money because they don’t yield a profitable product. So to bring it back to the point of my claim, more money would help.
no, this is what their research does, it creates carbon neutral fuel(or low carbon considering its an energy consuming process).
you wanted to show me that co2 can be used to make plastics and construction materials, and these people want to suggest it to secure more funding, but it hasnt been done yet.
The process is not new. Polyol is a plastic with more than one hydroxyl group, and most commonly made using CO2 and methanol or ethanol.
https://packagingeurope.com/news/how-can-the-plastics-industry-harness-carbon-capture-with-polymers-made-from-emissions/8432.article
The reason you don’t see it is because it would combat use of oil based plastics.
https://globalventuring.com/corporate/industrial/carbon-capture-plastics/
Again, this is all about money. The science is there.
Correct. There are however a lot of solutions that a) don't produce co2 and b) are more efficient and cheaper already, very much more so once they are properly scaled up.
So you could in fact throw money at the problem... And even those who refuse to follow the change will simply go bunkrupt over it because fossil fuels aren't even economically viable in comparison.