Recent searches
Search options
It's hard for people to visualize removing tons or billions of tons of carbon dioxide (CO₂). I propose we talk about CO₂ removal (#CDR) like a time machine (e.g., this machine will take us back 5 minutes). For example:
Q: How far back in time does planting 100 million trees take us?
A: If one mature tree takes up an average of 25 kg of CO₂ per year, then 100 million trees will take up 2.5 MtCO₂. That's a time machine that takes us back 33 minutes and 6 seconds in a year. It's not a lot.
I used the CO₂ removal (CDR) as time machine analogy to argue that while we need to research and develop CDR because it’s needed in the future, CDR is useless as a climate solution until we decarbonize drastically.
@davidho Or until CDR even exists commercially.
@davidho It isn't useLESS .. it doesn't solve the problem. There is of course a problem of scale here. You're essentially measuring the a tiny scale model and saying the whole thing can't work.
But you also aren't providing the reference. We don't need to go back 1000 years or even 100. How far should we go back 30 years? 50? With a goal in mind we can work on both decarbonizing AND CDR closing in on the target from both sides.
You missed the dimensions. You are asking how many years (a quantity) we need to go back. OP provided a RATE. To rephrase, it would be as if each year on NYE we go back 33 min at midnight and watch the ball drop again. The net emissions would still be an ADDED (1 y - 33 min) worth. Make sense?
@BenjaminHimes @davidho yes but whichever it is a static quantity or a rate over time there would still be a suggested amount that we should go back. Expressing any quantity without a goal reference is meaningless.
Hi @davidho
This time machine analogy is really helpful. Thanks.
But could you please tell about the source of your calculation?
@davidho It's greenwashing for major corporations, especially fossil fuel companies.