World’s top climate scientists expect global heating to blast past 1.5C target
Planet is headed for at least 2.5C of heating with disastrous results for humanity, poll of hundreds of scientists finds
Hundreds of the world’s leading climate scientists expect global temperatures to rise to at least 2.5C (4.5F) this century, blasting past internationally agreed targets and causing catastrophic consequences for humanity and the planet, an exclusive Guardian survey has revealed.
Almost 80% of the respondents, all from the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), foresee at least 2.5C of global heating above preindustrial levels, while almost half anticipate at least 3C (5.4F). Only 6% thought the internationally agreed 1.5C (2.7F) limit will be met.
Many of the scientists envisage a “semi-dystopian” future, with famines, conflicts and mass migration, driven by heatwaves, wildfires, floods and storms of an intensity and frequency far beyond those that have already struck.
Numerous experts said they had been left feeling hopeless, infuriated and scared by the failure of governments to act despite the clear scientific evidence provided.
Yeah just throw money at the carbon dioxide to make it go away
You say this sarcastically like it's not really an option
Where can i buy a carbon dioxide remover
A) at any tree nursery
B) these machines actually exist, and throwing money at them would no doubt expedite the process of making them a viable solution
Havent tree charities been planting billions or something? Is co2 reducing yet?
Get me a link to buy one of these machines
https://climeworks.com/
There you go. You got cash, they build the plant for you.
You're a bad and boring troll
"these machines actually exist"
"show me"
"wow what a troll"
Someone else in this thread is giving you the exact answers you're looking for, and you're sidestepping. Just like you sidestepped that trees are literal carbon dioxide removing machines.
Not to mention throwing money at corporations to develop cleaner manufacturing would also answer your original question.
You're not here to debate in good faith, you're a pesky little troll. Go away
no I directly responded about the trees. They're nice, they're not very effective. Like I said, planting trees isnt a novel suggestion, it's actively happening, a lot of money is being spent on it and a lot of trees are being planted. It's not moving the atmospheric co2 needle at all.
cleaner manufacturing is way too vague. manufacturers arent just making waste for the hell of it, it's already in their interests to manufacture as cleanly as possible. You'd have to point out specific processes that need to be changed or removed.
This shit is so easy to Google, you're not here to argue in good faith.
15 billion trees are cut down per year, 5 billion are planted.
Bro just stop. You think it's impossible to make global manufacturing more eco-friendly? Do I have to break down the exact step-by-step minutiae of every step to reducing CO2? are you mentally capable of inferring that there ARE solutions if you throw a fuckload of cash at it?
I mean, for fucks sake, there's a comment below involving Polyol that demolishes your argument. You've completely ignored that comment and came back here to be insanely pedantic.
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/innovators-trying-bring-down-sky-high-cost-direct-air-capture-2023-10-24/
Wasnt a difficult search.
And yes, more money(realistically probably a lot more) is needed to refine and improve the technology. No it isnt going to end climate change, but it is a small part of what is needed.
is the catch. it's still co2 gas.
Yes, where it can be moved and stored or potentially used in other applications.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsengineeringau.3c00049
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_air_capture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration
It’s not trolling it’s arguing. Big difference. The word “troll” is not a get-out-of-debate-free card.
See my other comment. Or don't, actually, I don't care.
You mean the comment I responded to? What comment are you referring to?
Uhh I think you glossed over the "don't care" part
Exactly. Methane too. There are countless engineering projects with potential for mitigation. VCs aren’t exactly lining up to “do good for the planet” without returns. Money caused the problem, just like money could address it.
Theres no such thing as clean fossil fuels, creating carbon dioxide is intrinsic to combustion energy.
What does that have to do with removal of CO2 and methane? There are plenty of solar, wind, wave, and salt powered removal solutions, as well as chemical.
http://arpa-e.energy.gov/technologies/exploratory-topics/direct-ocean-capture
Edit: Additional information on carbon conversion processes from further down in this thread
https://energy.stanford.edu/research/research-areas/carbon-removal/co2-conversion-use
https://news.mit.edu/2022/turning-carbon-dioxide-valuable-products-0907
Sorry, you said methane and i assumed you were talking about carbon capture from fossile fuel plants.
None of those are current solutions, step 1 is they release the co2 from the ocean. There is no step 2.
That’s simply not true. There are many models that convert it to bicarbonate or ethanol, building materials, bioplastics, or bind the carbon in solid form to be safely released back into the environment. The problem is they’re all expensive.
Oh, those werent in the link you provided, or in what i found looking at current carbon capture technology.
Search for “captured carbon conversion” to find out more about that step. Here are a few options, but there are countless more. We have many smart scientists that create solutions often. They rarely receive funding to take the initiatives out of the laboratory.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientist-discover-how-to-convert-co2-into-powder-that-can-be-stored-for-decades/
https://energy.stanford.edu/research/research-areas/carbon-removal/co2-conversion-use
https://news.mit.edu/2022/turning-carbon-dioxide-valuable-products-0907
Man they all talk about making carbon neutral fuel out of it. Taking the co2 out and putting it right back in
That’s from the Stanford link provided above.
Read the rest of that paragraph.
The only reason they’re leaning into fuel creation is to generate a profitable product to secure funding. There are many more responsible ways to convert the carbon that would cost more money because they don’t yield a profitable product. So to bring it back to the point of my claim, more money would help.
no, this is what their research does, it creates carbon neutral fuel(or low carbon considering its an energy consuming process).
you wanted to show me that co2 can be used to make plastics and construction materials, and these people want to suggest it to secure more funding, but it hasnt been done yet.
Correct. There are however a lot of solutions that a) don't produce co2 and b) are more efficient and cheaper already, very much more so once they are properly scaled up.
So you could in fact throw money at the problem... And even those who refuse to follow the change will simply go bunkrupt over it because fossil fuels aren't even economically viable in comparison.