Scientists Sound the Alarm: CO2 Levels

[Project 501D13R]

Again we dont need to plant trees, we need a factory that takes CO2 from the atmosphere and uses it to produces plastics or fuel. Trees have not evolved to create humans free stuff, they have evolved to pass on their genes and survive. We can take that process and use it more efficiently.

any factory that would do such a thing would have to process tons of atmosphere just to produce a few pounds of plastics, and with the energy it would use up, it would most likely end up being a significant net loss to CO2 levels.

[The Stormbringer]

Besides the obvious mockery in the post, the irony is that China is doing more that many western nations when it comes to cutting emissions, installing green technology and so forth. The single party system allows them to quickly force through changes, not to mention pollution is a direct health risk in cities, so they have multiple reasons to be a big player in that field.

In terms of economics, we had to install quota's since Chinese firms were dumping solar panels at prizes that western companies couldn't compete on, on that front they also have an angle.

On the topic at hand when i was a wee kid 20+ years ago i remember Green Peace being big on stopping it and people becoming aware of it, at this point as other have said it's adapt or die. Prevention is no longer in our play book. I'm sure the ignorant will still rather argue the cause but fools will be always present to argue anything. As for those claiming that we should just go on, even if you are opposed to anything green and prefer to reside in a desert, only a fool would put their money in fossil fuel, it's just a dumb move, they are becoming less profitable by the year, coal already is long out of play and even if we look at things nuclear there isn't a single new development that can't remain afloat without funding from governments. So even if you are betting with just your bank account smart money is on renewable and green technology.

But... but... coal jobs! And Big Oil! Whatever will we do without our Fossil Fuel Overlords?!

In all seriousness, I do agree with you. One reason China is pushing new regulation is because they realized how much of an impact all that concentrated emission was having at their cities. They still have smog days so bad they tell people to stay indoors in some places.

[Deleted]

any factory that would do such a thing would have to process tons of atmosphere just to produce a few pounds of plastics, and with the energy it would use up, it would most likely end up being a significant net loss to CO2 levels.

How? Slap a solar panel on it and leave it in the desert:O In theory it can keep going forever.. so after paying the initial cost to make such a factory, it would basically run for free. Well sans maintenance here and there. So again like trees, but solely focused on producing material, and stripped from all other "useless" functions such as competing with other trees, fighting illnesses, reproduction etc etc.

[Almgandi]

Again we dont need to plant trees, we need a factory that takes CO2 from the atmosphere and uses it to produces plastics or fuel. Trees have not evolved to create humans free stuff, they have evolved to pass on their genes and survive. We can take that process and use it more efficiently.

Actually both the co2a to plastic and co2a to fuel processes are a big waste of time and energy. If anything you should try to slap on any kind of conversion process directly to processes, which have large amounts of emissions. Except, in case of co2 to fuel it will not reduce co2 emissions (in a significant way) as fuel will again turn into co2 (and other gases/ash) after is is burned. The environmental friendly version of co2 conversion is used in combination with renewable sources and has the goal of using excess energy (midday from solar panels, etc.).

[Almgandi]

Again we dont need to plant trees, we need a factory that takes CO2 from the atmosphere and uses it to produces plastics or fuel. Trees have not evolved to create humans free stuff, they have evolved to pass on their genes and survive. We can take that process and use it more efficiently.

Actually both the co2a to plastic and co2a to fuel processes are a big waste of time and energy. If anything you should try to slap on any kind of conversion process directly to processes, which have large amounts of emissions. Except, in case of co2 to fuel it will not reduce co2 emissions (in a significant way) as fuel will again turn into co2 (and other gases/ash) after is is burned. The environmental friendly version of co2 conversion is used in combination with renewable sources and has the goal of using excess energy (midday from solar panels, etc.).

[Cthulhu 2020]

It is free actually.. and as much as I disagree with you on everything. I do think the big oil is holding this back. It's been calculated that small square of land in the Sahara desert filled with solar panels could fill the worlds energy needs. It's not an issue of can we do it, it's not even about the costs. We have the technology to do that. It's just that youre so brainwashed youd rather pay money to "green" energy to keep the oil industry going and fill the pockets of certain globalists pulling the strings than address the problem at its roots.

These estimations are for solar power, which is not reliant on CO2 being in the atmosphere. You seem to be mixing up real energy production from solar cells with your fantasy vision.

In fact, if you know how solar cells work, you'd also know that increasing CO2 and increasing temperature means more water vapor, which blocks out the particles that power our photo cells and keep in even more warming rays that don't do jack for power production.

- - - Updated - - -

"We have to spend billions of dollars researching this new technology, then once we have this new technology, we can spend billions to make new plants that can actually use this new technology. Then we can pay upkeep costs, labor costs, and all other costs associated with running this plant, and have free plastics and free energy!"

Free means without cost.

If you continue to insist that it will be free, then the only thing I can say is your understanding of that word is beyond help.

Also, if this technology ever did get to the point where it was without cost, your original point was that we may as well keep dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, because then we can just take it back out with this new tech... when in fact, we don't even need to keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere to get it back in the form of a usable solid. If we stopped producing CO2 as a whole right now, we'd have enough CO2 in the atmosphere to power this technology indefinitely ALREADY.

[Pterodactylus]

How? Slap a solar panel on it and leave it in the desert:O In theory it can keep going forever.. so after paying the initial cost to make such a factory, it would basically run for free. Well sans maintenance here and there. So again like trees, but solely focused on producing material, and stripped from all other "useless" functions such as competing with other trees, fighting illnesses, reproduction etc etc.

Sequestration is part of the solution there is no doubt about it, and sequestration will have a variety of forms. Something like the tech from your orginal article will probably be one of those forms. That being said, I don't know if you looked into the nuts and bolts of the particular technology that came from the article you posted, but there is much more to it than just slapping a solar panel on it.

You can read about it on their website. Or if you want more info read the patents that explain the technology.

[Jinpachi]

To reiterate something I said in my first post, none of these things are stuff we can't deal with. But we need to be proactive in doing so, and it's not gonna be free. We absolutely CAN adapt to this; my current career is rooted in adaptation policy, I've been working in this field off and on for the better part of a decade now, and my MA thesis is on this stuff. I'm just taking a stand against the people who jam their fingers in their stupid ears and refuse to pay attention to what's going on.

So what is the end play here? What laws do you foresee being enacted, and what effect on the general population will these laws have. How much of the little freedom we have left will have to be given up? I'm not trying to argue for non-action, i'm sincerely wondering what the contingency plans are.

[Zmaniac17]

To reiterate something I said in my first post, none of these things are stuff we can't deal with. But we need to be proactive in doing so, and it's not gonna be free. We absolutely CAN adapt to this; my current career is rooted in adaptation policy, I've been working in this field off and on for the better part of a decade now, and my MA thesis is on this stuff. I'm just taking a stand against the people who jam their fingers in their stupid ears and refuse to pay attention to what's going on.

This is the biggest thing some people don't seem to understand. The cost of dealing with this now is far lower than it will be if we wait. We can spend billions now or trillions later it's up to us. The countries who prepare now will inevitably have an economic advantage down the line, and those who don't or can't, will be paying big bucks to catch up. A stitch in time saves nine.

- - - Updated - - -

So what is the end play here? What laws do you foresee being enacted, and what effect on the general population will these laws have. How much of the little freedom we have left will have to be given up? I'm not trying to argue for non-action, i'm sincerely wondering what the contingency plans are.

IMO a national revenue neutral carbon tax is a good place to start. I think there is a large economic force moving towards renewable energy already. It only needs a small boost to push it over. It's not hard to compete with mining and drilling if your energy input is basically free. It's just an infrastructure problem. Of course it needs to be addressed differently in each country. But I think agreements like the Paris climate agreement are of vital importance as well.

[Endus]

Again we dont need to plant trees, we need a factory that takes CO2 from the atmosphere and uses it to produces plastics or fuel. Trees have not evolved to create humans free stuff, they have evolved to pass on their genes and survive. We can take that process and use it more efficiently.

So a magic factory that costs nothing to build and doesn't take up any space anywhere, and has no maintenance costs including staff requirements.

This is why we can't take you seriously.

So what is the end play here? What laws do you foresee being enacted, and what effect on the general population will these laws have. How much of the little freedom we have left will have to be given up? I'm not trying to argue for non-action, i'm sincerely wondering what the contingency plans are.

The "end play" is ensuring that we plan ahead for the conditions we're likely to face, because it's cheaper in the long run to be proactive about these things than reactive after conditions have already impacted things negatively.

That's literally it. Not sure why you're ranting about "giving up freedoms"; you're losing the "freedom" to do stupid shit like "build a house in a place that will be regularly flooded by storm surges in 20 years", which cities shouldn't be letting anyone do in the first place; they have an ethical obligation to their citizens to ensure that if they approve construction, it isn't in a location that's ill-suited and going to cause the owner constant headaches. Standard development practice for literally decades.

- - - Updated - - -

This is the biggest thing some people don't seem to understand. The cost of dealing with this now is far lower than it will be if we wait. We can spend billions now or trillions later it's up to us. The countries who prepare now will inevitably have an economic advantage down the line, and those who don't or can't, will be paying big bucks to catch up. A stitch in time saves nine.

Just as a for-instance, New York City was hit pretty hard by Hurricane Sandy, which brought record-high sea levels with the combination of high tide, the increased sea levels we're seeing, and the massive storm surge on top of all that. It did about $19 billion in damage to the city. They're currently starting a major project (called the "Big U") to try and prevent future such impacts, at a cost of just over $500 million. While that $500m seems like a LOT of money, if it prevents the damage of even one Sandy-type storm in, say, the next 50-80 years, it will have paid for itself many times over. That's the advantage of being proactive rather than reactive.

[Yelmurc]

Someone explain this to me. People are the left side of the spectrum want to save the environment. Which is a noble cause. So they buy Prius's and campaign against any pollution in America. These people also want Globalism and want to give out all the manufacturing jobs to other countries so those people have jobs and we get cheaper products. By doing this they are sending factories to China who is the worlds #1 polluter. Wouldn't you want those factories here in America where you can protest their environment impact and overall lower the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Because I don't see them in China protesting, because if they did they'd get locked up in a dungeon somewhere. Someone explain to me what the thinking here is. If I was them I'd be for moving all the factories here to America so we can make sure they are not polluting near as much as they are in China.

Below Chart is China's emissions from 1965 to 2015

[Endus]

Someone explain this to me. People are the left side of the spectrum want to save the environment. Which is a noble cause. So they buy Prius's and campaign against any pollution in America. These people also want Globalism and want to give out all the manufacturing jobs to other countries so those people have jobs and we get cheaper products. By doing this they are sending factories to China who is the worlds #1 polluter. Wouldn't you want those factories here in America where you can protest their environment impact and overall lower the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Because I don't see them in China protesting, because if they did they'd get locked up in a dungeon somewhere. Someone explain to me what the thinking here is. If I was them I'd be for moving all the factories here to America so we can make sure they are not polluting near as much as they are in China.

Below Chart is China's emissions from 1965 to 2015

Because that's a somewhat misleading way to look at it. A better measure is per-capita emissions; Canada's emissions in bulk are tiny, but our per-capita are relatively high (consequence of big distances between cities and higher power costs for heating/cooling).



Plus, while China's emissions HAVE spiked, they've also admitted that it's an issue and have put forth a pretty significant effort to curb them since about 2012; you can see how their per-capita numbers start to even off at that point. So they've started to plateau at per-capita emissions rates that are still pretty decent, globally speaking. Slightly above the EU, but that's more due to the EU's strong mitigation efforts recently than China's lack thereof.

[Cthulhu 2020]

"Guys, why should we worry about our emissions here when China isn't doing their part to curb their emissions?"

"They are. They started 10 years ago."

Only has to be explained like 5 times every thread.

[PosPosPos]

"Guys, why should we worry about our emissions here when China isn't doing their part to curb their emissions?"

"They are. They started 10 years ago."

Only has to be explained like 5 times every thread.

The worst part is, these are generally the same people who, after being explained to, walk into the next climate thread with the exact same copypasta.

[Deleted]

Again we dont need to plant trees, we need a factory that takes CO2 from the atmosphere and uses it to produces plastics or fuel. We can take that process and use it more efficiently.

Sure we can take CO2 from the atmosphere and make fuel but it is a very energy intensive process.....

[Zmaniac17]

Someone explain this to me. People are the left side of the spectrum want to save the environment. Which is a noble cause. So they buy Prius's and campaign against any pollution in America. These people also want Globalism and want to give out all the manufacturing jobs to other countries so those people have jobs and we get cheaper products. By doing this they are sending factories to China who is the worlds #1 polluter. Wouldn't you want those factories here in America where you can protest their environment impact and overall lower the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Because I don't see them in China protesting, because if they did they'd get locked up in a dungeon somewhere. Someone explain to me what the thinking here is. If I was them I'd be for moving all the factories here to America so we can make sure they are not polluting near as much as they are in China.

We can't keep low skilled manufacturing jobs here in the United States they are being replaced with automation because only robots can compete with sub minimum wage workers in countries like China and India. Closing borders and keeping your manufacturing inside the country only makes your businesses less competitive on the global market.

Globalism is not something that can stopped. For example, to make a smart phone, it takes the entire world to produce the parts and materials. The materials and parts literally come from everywhere. And assembling them is not really where the big money comes from. Wouldn't you rather own Apple over Foxconn? So whether or not people want it is irrelevant. They buy smart phones and other stuff so globalism continues.

There is a lot of out of sight out of mind hypocrisy going on with environmentalism and you're right to point out that China is now the biggest offender with CO2 pollution. However, they are also the single largest investor in renewable energy. This seems backwards to me. The United States, having already completed their transition into an advanced economy, should be the world leader in advanced renewable power.

My main points here are that the future is robotic manufacturing and renewable power. Anyone stuck using people and fossil fuels will suffer for it. I'm not sure if that answered your question or not.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/05/w...nvestment.html

[Breccia]

I'm sure it will be fine, because opinions and coal jobs.

I know you're being sarcastic, but, what coal jobs?

I am still waiting for even a Conservative American source to explain how, even with the pollution regulations removed, coal will somehow become competitively economically viable, to my satisfaction. And yes, it'd have to be both Conservative and American because international sources, and center/left American sources, aren't saying this at all.

We're not using coal.

China's not using coal.

India and Russia are upping output, though not as much as they'd like, which won't help prices.

Nuclear energy and hydroelectric remain the best options, and in the meantime, the US under Trump's orders is expanding fracking and oil, driving the costs of both down. The price of oil has dropped since Jan 20th from about $54 to about $48 due to a variety of reasons I'm sure, but none of which magically make coal better.

The only realistic option are massive subsidies, meaning, that American taxpayers will be paying for coal to go to other people. Which means, that there will be people who say that a coal miner shouldn't have to pay for PBS, but PBS will have to pay for a coal miner.

EDIT: Also, what @Zmaniac17 said!

[Unhinged]

any factory that would do such a thing would have to process tons of atmosphere just to produce a few pounds of plastics, and with the energy it would use up, it would most likely end up being a significant net loss to CO2 levels.

I would think trying to genetically engineer algae would be the most sane approach. Harvesting blooms for biofuels could be a possibility.

[Gorgodeus]

The Thing with solar power is its not efficient enough I mean to power a single house you would have to line the entire roof of a house and in many cases any sort of land the people who own said house in order to have enough power and the cost would be insane to install as well with the whole permits and labor and cost of materials. Nuclear is just as bad due to potential hazards that could last even longer than what it would take co2 levels to drop.

There are now entire roofs that are solar panels, even solar powered shingles, and no, the costs are not that high, considering they eliminate an electric bill.

- - - Updated - - -

Again we dont need to plant trees, we need a factory that takes CO2 from the atmosphere and uses it to produces plastics or fuel. Trees have not evolved to create humans free stuff, they have evolved to pass on their genes and survive. We can take that process and use it more efficiently.

You spouting moronic nonsense. Do you even know what the most important and needed component for the manufacturing of plastic on a large scale basis is? Crude Oil.

You will not be magically making it from air.

[Elegiac]

You will not be magically making it from air.

Technically speaking, no.

Plastics are at their most basic hydrocarbon polymers which are by definition produced from simpler hydrocarbons - it's entirely possible to produce hydrocarbons using atmospheric carbon sequestration. The issue that it's ridiculously expensive, energy intensive, and nowhere near as efficient as just planting trees and things that sequester carbon by virtue of them just being alive.

If we're talking novel scientific solutions I daresay the likely thing is GM plants that have an upped level of carbon intake - probably hemp, since you can grow the fucking thing in almost any environment.