Maybe it's time for the "net" in Net Zero to go. Direct air capture (of CO2 from the atmosphere) of 10 gigatonnes of CO2 per year (IPCC aim by 2050), has a *theoretical minimum* energy cost of 10% of the world's current energy consumption. And in practice it currently takes 5-7 times more than that, so >HALF our entire electricity supply. That energy would be far better spent decarbonising, until that task is complete. The aim has to be **zero** carbon, not net anything. #climate #CDR #NetZero
@helenczerski Net Zero is a scam promoted by the fossil fuel industry, their investors, and the politicians they own to lengthen the run of "business as usual."
@helenczerski NetZero was a scam from the beginning. It was created for the rich countries to carry on with capitalism and BAU, enriching the uberich even further and providing a tool to green wash rich countries capitalist consumerism. Second law of thermodynamics is not something economists are interested in. And for some fucking reason, those idiots are calling the shots on climate policy.
Edited 70d ago
@billheywood @helenczerski Then we are screwed - the IPCC say that we cannot meet the 1.5° target without carbon capture. However, it shouldn't be our *primary* carbon reduction method - we need to stop emitting *and* do carbon capture.
@steve @billheywood The point is that we have to decarbonise FIRST. Carbon dioxide removal can come later. They can't happen in parallel at scale because we haven't got enough energy to scale up carbon removal while we still have carbon-emitting power elsewhere. The immediate aim must be zero carbon emission. Carbon removal can come after that, but it's not a get-out-of-jail free card to keep emitting before then. See 12:30 in here for why: fullycharged.show/episodes/is-