Comments
BernieEcclestoned t1_jbo73pp wrote
That's literally what net zero is though isn't it?
MT_Kinetic_Mountain t1_jbo7ufl wrote
Yeah but net zero doesn't solve the issue we're having, right? I thought we've crossed whatever threshold there was for limiting carbon emissions and we've got to remove carbon from the atmosphere than just stop putting out more.
Also in more concerned that it'll be the same fate as similar programs where it's just used by corporations to greenwash their business while not putting any actual effort to reduce the waste they out out into the world.
OriginalCompetitive t1_jboe71k wrote
Emissions in the US and Europe have been dropping for 20 years, so it’s not all just greenwashing.
wtfduud t1_jbt1ch3 wrote
> but net zero doesn't solve the issue we're having, right?
It does, but only very slowly. The Earth can absorb a certain amount of CO2 per year.
But it could take centuries for all the CO2 we've already put out to disappear. So if we want to solve it within our lifetime, we do need to start scrubbing CO2 out of the air manually.
halfanothersdozen t1_jboblar wrote
So they're gonna capture CO2 then put it on a cargo ship and ship it across the ocean, which is one of the most carbon-intensive things we do. Okay.
OriginalCompetitive t1_jboe1t2 wrote
Shipping is not carbon intensive.
[deleted] t1_jboljfe wrote
[deleted]
Nonhinged t1_jbor4sk wrote
Trucks use something like 10 times more fuel to move the same amount of stuff the same distance. Ships are by far the most fuel efficient vehicle.
wtfduud t1_jbt1gkn wrote
Trucks can be electrified.
Electric ships are a harder challenge.
Nonhinged t1_jbt8oei wrote
Well, if half the electricity comes from gas or oil the ship is only 5 times better.
Ships could also use sails, kites or other types of wind power. Or maybe hydrogen, not everything have to be electrified.
tanrgith t1_jboyzgx wrote
Shipping is not carbon intensive relative to other methods of transport
[deleted] t1_jbopw9w wrote
Yeah the economics of carbon capture literally dont work, which is why the Biden admin subsidized it to get it started. Sending us further into deficit for a really stupid idea.
pickingnamesishard69 t1_jbqb7g7 wrote
Afaik the lobbying from the fossil fuel industry pushed bush jr into subsidizing it, which was sadly continued by every administration afterwards.
[deleted] t1_jbou99l wrote
[removed]
random_encounters42 t1_jbrf1nh wrote
Trees… they store carbon and produce oxygen in return, which we literally need to live, just saying.
KingoftheMongoose t1_jbsry41 wrote
There is unrest in the forest […]
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw
edonnelly1988 t1_jbsypda wrote
Doesn't that exchange occur in the leaves?
random_encounters42 t1_jbwng8b wrote
Yes it does, but carbon is largely stored in “the tree”. Also you can really have the leaves without the rest of the plant right?
[deleted] t1_jbo2h0c wrote
[removed]
FuturologyBot t1_jbo5xgs wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/chrisdh79:
From the article: This week, Denmark inaugurated the world's first national project to bury CO2 from abroad and bury it deep beneath the ocean.
The Nordic country is administering a so-called CO2 graveyard where it will bury CO2 roughly 5,900 feet (1,800 meters) beneath the North Sea.
The new initiative, called the "Greensand" project, is led by British chemical giant Ineos and German oil company Wintershall Dea. It's part of a wider plan to prevent the release of CO2 into the atmosphere in order to attempt to stave off the worst effects of climate change.
The Greensand project is one of many carbon capture and storage (CSS) projects in the works around the world. It will aim to store up to eight million tonnes of CO2 per year by 2030 to help fight climate change. As EuroNews points out in a report, roughly 30 CSS projects are currently operational or in development throughout Europe.
What sets the Greensand project apart from other similar initiatives is the fact that Denmark is importing CO2 from abroad for its CSS project, making it the first country to do so.
The CO2 is first captured at the source and then liquefied before being transported by ship. However, the project may use pipelines in the future.
The new project "will help us reach our climate goals, and since our subsoil contains a storage potential far larger than our own emissions, we are able to store carbon from other countries as well," explained Climate Minister Lars Aagaard.
Danish authorities, who aim to reach carbon neutrality by around 2045, say the new initiative is "a much-needed tool in our climate toolkit."
It's worth noting that, though the Greensand project could store millions of tonnes of CO2, it will form part of a much larger global effort required to avert the climate crisis.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/11nog0x/denmark_will_be_first_country_to_import_store/jbo2h0c/
Regular_Dick t1_jbonb5w wrote
Just make a “sewer bong” and store it in our waste water.
[deleted] t1_jbozmc9 wrote
[deleted]
mechatronics-music t1_jbrdyjl wrote
What gives certain subsoil more storage potential than other subsoil?
DeNir8 t1_jbotn4g wrote
And yet the population in denmark is looking at extreme taxes on power ($0,3/kwh for transport, and another $0,15/kwh because F you and then the price) and extreme taxes on already expensive meat ($15/pound + 30% F you tax)
Drahy t1_jboz5yo wrote
I'll be paying 1.05 krone or $0.15 per kWh tonight including everything here in Denmark.
DeNir8 t1_jbp04hw wrote
Howso? Any documentation on that?
Anyhoot. The government has temporarily removed taxes while the extreme tarif for transport is being introduced. But the taxes will be added, and much higer, this summer.
Also, there is now a penalty for using electricity in peak hours.
According to https://www.bolius.dk/elpriser the avg. price right now is 2.86dkk or $0,40.
Edit:According to this https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/Denmark/electricity_prices/ denmark is by far the most expensive. Corporate greed?
Drahy t1_jbpiutd wrote
I logged in to my electricity provider and it's my actual price in the night.
It's more expensive in the day and peaked at $0.45.
MT_Kinetic_Mountain t1_jbo4nyb wrote
Seems like a cool idea but I feel like it'll just be used to offset future carbon emissions that reduce what we're currently putting out