like all analogies, you can blow holes in specifics, but this is essentially the argument David Ho makes. and he cloaks it in having something "science-y" about it, because he published an *opinion* piece in Nature, but that piece really just lays out personal preferences for ordering investments.. - ThreadSky

rustneversleeps.bsky.social • 9 days ago

like all analogies, you can blow holes in specifics, but this is essentially the argument David Ho makes.

and he cloaks it in having something "science-y" about it, because he published an *opinion* piece in Nature, but that piece really just lays out personal preferences for ordering investments..

Comments

clarkdodsworth.bsky.social•9 days ago

Everyone turns off the faucet before beginning to mop up.

Your word salad must have some orher motivation.

rustneversleeps.bsky.social•9 days ago

in his article (pinned post), David states - his *OWN* assertion👇 - that achieving net-zero emissions will require dealing with ~7.2 GtCO₂ yr⁻¹ of residual emissions "so we will have to scale up CDR substantially to reach net zero."

But he suggests that someone we have time to waste in scaling...

rustneversleeps.bsky.social•9 days ago

... that up from infancy, and we can just wait until gross emissions have substantially declined by unknowable and undefined amounts by unknowable and undefined dates and only *then* (somehow) rapidly stand up this industry he states is necessary.

CDR is dealing with the drain in your bathtub...

rustneversleeps.bsky.social•9 days ago

... analogy at the same time as dealing with the faucet... instead of sequentially... both work towards reducing the amount of water in the tub... there is no "overflow" of atmospheric CO₂ we "mop up" from a separate stock... it's all in "the tub"... if the faucet is still going at 7 GtCO₂ yr⁻¹, you

rustneversleeps.bsky.social•9 days ago

... need the drain opened an extra 7 GtCO₂ yr⁻¹ *at* next zero to stop accumulation of net emissions... if you only deal with the faucet and *then* deal with the drain, all else equal, you end up with *higher* peak cumulative emissions and warming...

rustneversleeps.bsky.social•9 days ago

... during unknowable mitigation pathways to net-zero carbon emissions.

But the *only* two scientific references he makes are one👇 which supports his (uncontroversial!) claim that we currently emit net ~40 GtCO2 yr¯¹...

rustneversleeps.bsky.social•9 days ago

... and secondly he provides this reference👇to support *HIS OWN* claim:

"In reality, residual emissions will probably be [7.2 GtCO₂ yr⁻¹] so we will have to scale up CDR
substantially to reach net zero."

rustneversleeps.bsky.social•9 days ago

So, even while personally acknowledging and highlighting the reqvment to stand up a huge industry capable of such enormous quantities by ~2050 (just 25 yrs from now!), he suggests that we should wait on deployment until gross emissions are already reduced over the next several decades to a point...

rustneversleeps.bsky.social•9 days ago

... where he invokes unphysical, science-y sounding arguments about "time machines" or the relative size of *any* one project of *any* mitigation project being small compared to our current 40 GtCO₂ yr⁻¹ emissions.

But they aren't actually science arguments at all.

rustneversleeps.bsky.social•9 days ago

All of it is essentially just David's personal opinions and preferences as to what mitigation technologies we should prioritize - fair enough!

But he goes further, advocating stunting and delaying investment in a solution he doesn't personally like, but at the same time admits we'll *need*...

rustneversleeps.bsky.social•9 days ago

... at many multiple GtCO₂ yr⁻¹ scale in order to reach net-zero CO₂ emissions!

There are *plenty* of valid and scientific issues with scaling CDR.

By publishing his opinion in Nature, it *seems* - and readers are invited to assume! - that he is making scientific arguments. But he doesn't.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply