this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2023
29 points (89.2% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5239 readers
375 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world. About 1C of total warming. Second chart: about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability. Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases. About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net
29
A company says that it has found a way to remove CO2 from the air for less than $100 per ton (wapo.st)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
18 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Graphyte, a new company incubated by Bill Gates’s investment group Breakthrough Energy Ventures, announced Monday that it has created a method for turning bits of wood chips and rice hulls into low-cost, dehydrated chunks of plant matter. Those blocks of carbon-laden plant matter — which look a bit like shoe-box sized Lego blocks — can then be buried deep underground for hundreds of years.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Be nice, but we're talking about remote locations with a high cost of transport. It's unlikely to be cost-effective

[–] JoBo@feddit.uk 4 points 1 year ago

Even when it is bury for no value vs sell to replace carbon-producing materials? I don't buy it. Very few places are so remote that there is zero local-ish demand for building materials and they have to build facilities and support workers in those remote places instead.

[–] Zipitydew@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Coal mines in Appalachia fit multiple criteria for this to be effective.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago

The older ones, sure. Mountaintop removal ones, probably not so much.

[–] theluckyone@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Burying it deep underground instead is likely to impose a high cost of transport as well.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They're proposing about 10 feet, which isn't that far.

[–] theluckyone@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Agreed. However, burying it ten foot underground in a remote location, sealing it to keep moisture out, and then continuing to monitor it for hundreds of years is not trivial.