Science vs. Global Warming

[redqueen]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,672072,00.html">Can CO2 Catchers Combat Climate Change?

By Samiha Shafy

While nations bicker about who should cut greenhouse gas emissions and by how much, scientists are dreaming up their own solutions to global warming. A German professor has created a filter which extracts more than a thousand times more carbon dioxide from the air than a tree.

The situation may not be nearly as grim as it looks. For Klaus Lackner, at least, human-induced global warming is a problem that can be controlled, perhaps even solved -- even if humankind doesn't manage to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Born in Heidleberg, Lackner, 57, is a geophysicist and director of the Lenfest Center for Sustainable Energy at the renowned Earth Institute at Columbia University in New York. He's also the man behind an ambitious new solution for the climate change problem. The scientist wants to build millions of CO2 catchers, machines the size of shipping containers fitted with chemical filters to pull greenhouse gases out of the air the same way trees do. The devices may be bulkier and less attractive than real trees, but they are thousands of times more efficient.

(snip)

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has so far largely ignored this new technology and many colleagues in the field are skeptical. "I doubt it's possible to do this with a reasonable amount of energy expenditure," says Jochen Oexmann, who studies carbon capture at the Hamburg-Harburg Technical University. "Even at a power plant it requires a great deal of energy."

(more at link)

[Don Caballero]

1. One of the better plans I have heard to combat catastrophic man made climate change.

Hope many foundations and governments fund this guy.

[Codeine]

2. The purists will fight this

just as they fight nuclear. They have an almost religious aversion to science-based solutions.

[Meldread]

3. +1000 I agree.

It should have been abundantly clear over a decade ago that the world has no intention of reducing carbon emissions. It just is not going to happen, and continuing down that path is folly. The reality is that even if every nation on planet Earth immediately became carbon neutral this very second climate change will STILL happen. The dirty little secret no one likes to talk about is that it's to late to stop it, and at this point we're just hoping to blunt the immediate (15 - 50 year) impact. To make matters worse, we don't even really know for certain if we CAN blunt the impact because certain climate events have already been set into motion. The planet has its own self-regulating systems when it comes to climate, and it doesn't give a shit about what we want it to do. New species will evolve that are better suited to the climate, and despite dire predictions the climate change won't be bad for everyone - some places will benefit from it. Humanity as a whole won't suddenly become extinct, though there are serious risks of massive starvation. Wealthy nations will find a way to weather the worst of the changes, it's the poor nations that will be hit the hardest.

In the end, we want to stop climate change because it is a wild card. It WILL lead to geopolitical instability, and it is difficult to say who will benefit and who will be harmed by the changes. This is the climate we've adapted our civilization too, and therefore we want to keep it.

Thus, we are left with the very thing we had to start with: our ingenuity. It was our ingenuity that made many of the things that are causing the problem, and therefore it will ultimately be our ingenuity that attempts to solve it. Whether it will be successful or not is debatable.

As for non-renewable sources of energy... we're going to be sucking on the fossil fuel teat until it runs dry. We'll begin to switch to renewable energy sources on a world-wide scale once the prices for that non-renewable energy starts to go through the roof and stays there.

[Gregorian]

4. I'm kind of one of those purists.

I'll take all of the solutions we can find.

But, my issue is that global warming is only a symptom. This is why you see some of us cringing at these so-called answers. They are masks and bandaids.

I do like being wrong. It's the most important way I learn.

[tinrobot]

5. Kind of like taking Lipitor so you can eat junk food and smoke.

I could easily see these sorts of technologies helping in the short term, but also allowing people to continue their carbon-centric lifestyles.

[Meldread]

7. The problem with that comparison is...

...junk food and smoking are virtually unlimited. The major things causing climate change that we're attacking is energy consumption, which mostly comes from fossil fuels. If we can create technology that will counter the CO2 our fossil fuel consumption leads too, there is good news and bad news. The good news is that the problem will take care of itself. The bad news is that it will take care of itself because we'll run out of fossil fuels.

No matter how you slice the bread, we're going to end up using some type of renewable energy. The path we are on is a dead end.

[Odin2005]

16. They won't be happy until we are are all subsistance farmers again, the idiots.

Once a carbon-free energy source becomes popular they turn against it. When a mitigating technology comes along they reject it. They are Luddites that believe in the racist myth of the Noble Savage.

[Posteritatis]

17. Now, now, some are outright human extinctionists, too

Can't use too broad a brush here. ;)

[joshcryer]

18. Those aren't environmentalists, they don't consider the impact that a failing civilization has.

The fact that humans would destroy the environment at all costs if their energy sources broke is beyond them.

[Odin2005]

19. Exactly, technology INCREASES the EFFICIENCY of energy use.

And many technological and economic advances were the result of resource issues. Ancient Athens was forced to become a center of trade and commerce because deforestation let the bare soil erode away, large parts of the countryside surrounding Athens became fit only for olive trees. In the late 1600s the Brits started using coal because they were running out of forests to cut down.

[Bigmack]

6. Lets assume that technology WILL find a way

to clean the atmosphere of CO2. No one seems to be saying much - enough - about the FACT that there's only SO much fossil fuel, and there's LESS, not MORE, every day. Hello...... Ms Bigmack

[Nihil]

8. Whoop-de-doo! Back to business as usual!

Yet another "we're saved!" article that is full of "might"s and "possibly"s
but distinctly lacking in solutions.

Nowhere in that piece did anyone suggest *WHAT* they intend to do with this
magically extracted CO2 ...

So ... this is just another "Technology will save us!" prayer without any
foundation in reality but I'm sure that this will not get in the way of the
pricks who will use schemes like this as "justification" for not changing
a single damned wasteful thing that they do.

:grr:

(And no, I'm not having a go at you RedQueen, just the empty-headed cheering
that every hare-brained announcement like this provokes from the peanut gallery.)

[redqueen]

9. But actually someone did... in the section titled "Sinking Costs."

All that won't work without energy input, Lackner admits, "but the process produces only about a fifth as much CO2 as the device collects." After it has been extracted, the collected carbon dioxide could be stored deep below the earth's surface.

Lackner estimates the costs of this method at about $300 (€205) per ton of carbon dioxide in the beginning. In the long term, he believes the price could sink to around $30 per ton.

[eqfan592]

10. I wonder if this would work at a smaller scale?

Instead of using single, large filters, could this be effectively employed using smaller, less expensive filters placed on individual buildings/cars? Just thinking out loud here in the hopes that somebody with more direct knowledge may chime in :)

[Nihil]

12. Precisely - that was just another hand-wave.

> After it has been extracted, the collected carbon
> dioxide could be stored deep below the earth's surface.

That was my point. The bit about actually *doing* something with
this extracted CO2 (rather than just dumping it out again in some
bizarre form of catch & release) was back to the same vague "could"s
and handwaving "estimates" that we've seen from the other projects.

The theoretical & academic achievement of increased efficiency
extraction is good - I agree & will praise it as such - but the
touting of it as any form of "solution" is dismally disappointing.

[Meldread]

11. So what is your solution?

It's already too late to stop climate change. Possibly, maybe, hopefully, pray that immediately going to Carbon Neutral will blunt the impact? Keep in mind there is no evidence to suggest that it would work for certain, because there are other factors at work that we don't completely know or understand. We don't know why the planet is warming faster than the models suggest, which points to the possibility that we've triggered some type of natural climate shift.

Of course, getting to Carbon Neutral - good luck. So far every attempt has failed, and all signs point to no solution until the crisis is already upon us... which, unfortunately, is so often the case. We'd rather build levies after New Orleans has been under water for awhile, not before.

This leaves us with technology.

As for the article itself, if you read it in full it is primarily about a carbon filter that is more efficient than trees.

[Nihil]

13. "Prayer" is what the OP article involves. The solutions have been around for decades.

I agree with some of your points, specifically these three:

> It's already too late to stop climate change.

> ... which points to the possibility that we've triggered some type
> of natural climate shift.

> We'd rather build levies after New Orleans has been under water
> for awhile, not before.


On the other hand ...

> This leaves us with technology.

Not quite: it leaves us with the hope that technology will "save us"
while "we" carry on doing more of the same dumb things every day.


> So what is your solution?

I have no magic solution other than to repeat some of the many solutions
that have been proffered over the decades but ignored by the petty
shit-for-brains who run the world as the latter are too full of their
greed, their lust for power, their egos and their total disregard for
anything that might possibly detract from maximizing the same.


> As for the article itself, if you read it in full it is primarily
> about a carbon filter that is more efficient than trees.

I did read it in full and though it is more efficient at extraction
than trees, it is not "more efficient than trees" as it does not
perform the storage/sequestration operation that a tree does. Maybe some
other genius can put two & two together to realise that when you have to
do the entire process in one self-reproducing self-constructing device,
the tree actually does it better.

Yet, as I noted previously, it will be taken up & trumpeted around as a
"solution" to mankind's greed & laziness and used to put off having to
actually *DO* anything for even longer.

I applaud the science and effort behind the project (more so once it has
been proven in the real world) but that does not negate my contempt for
those who grasp this announcement as the latest straw in their desperate
attempts to keep their unsustainable attitudes above the waters of chaos.

[TZ]

14. Well since the scientists have no power to actually make people

do anything about climate change...(Bush's destruction of science still lingers today), isn't it a good idea to have a solution that isn't dependent on an ignorant and ill informed populace? Seriously how can anyone say a partial solution is better than nothing? Do you think all of us should suffer for the sins of a few?

[Nihil]

20. (Sorry - I missed the updates on this thread)

> isn't it a good idea to have a solution that isn't dependent on
> an ignorant and ill informed populace?

Completely agree with that and yes, it is truly a goal to aim for.


> Seriously how can anyone say a partial solution is better than nothing?

The only reason is when the partial solution is claimed to be a complete
solution (either by the proposer or, more often, by the rosy-eyed parrots).


> Do you think all of us should suffer for the sins of a few?

In a similar turnaround to your post, it doesn't actually matter
*what* I think as it has zero effect on you or anyone else beyond
my immediate sphere.

:hi:

FWIW, I don't think we should but I think that we will.

[Meldread]

15. My issue is that...

I am 100% confident that no nation, no matter how progressive, is willing or capable to go as far as necessary to stop climate change. Further, even if there was such a nation, that would not negate the issues created by other nations. Thus, to put it crudely: We're screwed.

At this point there are no more real options left. All we have is the slim hope that science will find some way to reverse what we've done.

That being said... Regardless of how this filter turns out I think it would be really awesome to use them in conjunction with vertical farms. It might make the farms more efficient.

If nothing else, I'm pretty sure we could store all the CO2 in really big pressurized tanks. That would allow us to use it should it ever be required.

[Nihil]

21. (Again, sorry for missing your update - I should stop posting on a Friday ...)

> Regardless of how this filter turns out I think it would be
> really awesome to use them in conjunction with vertical farms.
> It might make the farms more efficient.

Again, I admire the technological advance and applaud the work
behind it. Contrary to some opinions, I am *not* a Luddite - I simply
object to the straw-grasping faith (not science) that some people apply
to an announcement in order to claim that a solution has been found
that will allow everyone to carry on in their happy little exponentially
growing business as usual attitude.


> If nothing else, I'm pretty sure we could store all the CO2 in
> really big pressurized tanks. That would allow us to use it should
> it ever be required.

Hah! Ignoring the problems of scale (which alone would rule this out
as a viable strategy), just think for a moment about all the flak that
the nuclear industry gets w.r.t. storing solid waste that is far less
dangerous than this compressed gaseous waste ("Magnet for terrorists!",
"Maintenance nightmare!", "Can't guarantee it for necessary timescales!")
and re-consider it.

:hi: