Africa’s first carbon-removal plant stokes questions about responsible climate solutions
www.nbcnews.com
A joint venture between Swiss company Climeworks and Kenya-based Great Carbon Valley has been billed as a springboard for creating a new, green economy in Africa.

The article puts it up as a question about whether this practice is worthwhile since the only logical solution to climate change is to de-carbonize. Personally I think that question isn’t very nuanced, certainly de-carbonizing 100’a of tons from the atmosphere from just this one plant is a small net positive. Can’t let it be an excuse to keep rolling coal in your F750’a but I’m still in favor of sucking as much carbon out of the air as we can.

  • qfe0@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    3·
    1 year ago

    A lot of things need to happen fast to reduce the impacts of climate change. Amongst them it’s gaining the knowledge of how to do all of the things that will need doing sooner or later. Lots of ideas will fail for various reasons. The more tools we work on the better off we’ll be.

    The other thing is it really coming at the expense of other decarbonization efforts? Or is it happening in parallel with other things.

    It doesn’t stop the other work well need to do, and I’m not convinced it’s a net negative. I think there’s room to experiment at this scale and make adjustments as we progress. Hydrogen for instance is its own can of worms and it’s not clear it’s the best solution, but maybe it will be. We should work on it.

    • Spzi@lemm.eeEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      Generally agreed. Though in a finite world, things happening in parallel can easily come at the expense of other things.

      Money spent here cannot be spent there. More construction projects mean more concrete being used, another major source of emissions. Some people also worry some approaches can give false hopes, thereby politically preventing less comfortable but more impactful measures.

      I’m also not fully sold why DAC, and not CCS. Both are very similar (they filter CO2 out of gas, and store it), but the concentration of the target gas makes all the difference. The process becomes much more efficient when the concentration is higher. So physically and economically, it makes much more sense to capture these molecules in the exhaust fumes of large industrial facilities like power plants, instead of waiting until they disperse in the atmosphere, to then tediously catch them again.

      I think it’s a challenge to settle for the right portfolio. Too few pillars and our foundation could crumble. Too many and we could end up wasting our efforts on approaches which ultimately did not work. Which matters, because time is short and tipping points allow no going back. Though in the political reality of our world, we can probably be happy about anything which avoids or removes any single atom. Or not, because maybe we could have avoided and removed twice that amount for the same effort with an obviously better approach!