I still worry that even if DAC becomes really efficient and cost effective, it will only encourage large corps to pollute more. They will claim that since the emissions are removed anyway, they can keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere without consequence.
I worry more that it will become like recycling, and they'll pretend it works or that it's being done at scale so the majority stops worrying about it
"[...] COF-999, is a microscopic scaffolding of hydrocarbons held together by superstrong carbon-nitrogen and carbon-carbon bonds, such as those found in diamonds. The amines sit in the scaffolding’s open spaces, ready to snag CO2 molecules passing by"
Ok, but methane is far worse. Not sure why everyone focuses on CO2
Methane is much more potent (over 100x), but there's still relatively more damage by CO2 thanks to a higher atmospheric abundance, and methane is able to break down much more quickly in the atmosphere. It's far worse per molecule, but CO2 is far worse overall.
Methane is a massive problem, and there should be more focus on it, but bringing it up on an article about CO2 emissions instead of engaging with the problem described in the article is the sort of textbook whataboutism that people who want to stall climate action use because "well what about this other thing instead" (repeat ad infinitum until the planet's uninhabitable). Anyone is welcome to post on Lemmy, and that makes you more than welcome to make separate posts for articles on methane.
And this is coming from someone who ardently opposes animal agriculture and natural gas, two of the biggest sources of atmospheric CH4.
Because it's the primary driver of climate change.
Sulfur hexafluoride is far worse than methane, why do you care about methane?
Because CO2 is the primary problem and is released in much more concentrated areas where this could be useful?
I mean one reason methane is worse is because it also becomes co2 but if we got a handle on the co2 we would not be in so problematic a situation. that being said there is about twice as much co2 in the atmosphere as pre-industrially and its at 500 billion metric tons. the cost was 1k per metric ton. a thousand billion is a trillion so it would cost about 250 trillion dollars to get us back to pre-industrial just for co2. if it actually ends up being that cheap. world gdp is estimated at 100 trillion and of course humanity is made of very selfless folks at the wealthiest levels who are way ok with sacrificing their wealth for the good of the planet /s. As you point out that will not get rid of methane or any other pollution we have in the land, water, and air.
This is great news!
Until it causes cancer!
Cancer kills humans, which are a main cause of CO2 emissions!
/s
Pretty early days but potentially promising, if it's cheap - "exotic" materials rarely are though.
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:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.