Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

novelexistence t1_irrddan wrote

Capitalism doesn't care where it gets it's energy from.

As long as negative externalities aren't appropriately priced it's a losing battle. WE need negative externalities to be priced for the damage they do to the environment or we're not getting any where.

82

OriginalCompetitive t1_irrh2m4 wrote

US emissions have already dropped by 20% and are falling fast. EU emissions have dropped by 34%. It’s already well underway.

24

hopelesslysarcastic t1_irtocuu wrote

I mean…those figures seem pretty insufficient given the state of things, no?

1

OriginalCompetitive t1_irupexw wrote

Sure. But there’s a big difference between not there yet and “we’re not getting anywhere.”

It also depends on how long you’ve been following climate change. I’m old enough to remember when US emissions were skyrocketing. So it’s quite hopeful to see how much things have changed.

4

BreakRaven t1_irvn2wn wrote

> Capitalism doesn't care where it gets it's energy from.

Neither does any economic system on the planet.

3

PurpEL t1_irusag3 wrote

The cost will come from people, not the rich lizardmen unfortunately. Their kind will remain rich and continue to extract even more. Back to serfdom.

This will only be solved by fusion power

1

[deleted] t1_irrs20q wrote

[removed]

−27

madewithgarageband t1_irsh161 wrote

As opposed to…stripping the Earth of crude oil and fracking? Or are you proposing we go back to the 1800s

11

Frubanoid t1_irs78m2 wrote

In the US mines are required to set aside money for cleanup before they even break ground. So at least there's that.

7

fungussa t1_irslsjl wrote

Not at all. Tech has already been developed to fully recycle lithium and solar tech is being developed that won't use any toxic / rare materials. Though more importantly, unlike fossil fuels, renewable tech is not undermining the Earth's capacity to sustain life.

7

[deleted] t1_irsx73o wrote

[removed]

0

fungussa t1_irsxkk4 wrote

It's low, on both counts. But all environmental impacts from renewable tech is entirely irrelevant when one considers that the continued use of fossil fuels risks the collapse of modern civilisation.

6

[deleted] t1_irsy69c wrote

[removed]

−1

DirtyLucinaMain t1_irtxlcm wrote

"Tech is always improving" you're right! Renewables are well on their way to becoming infinitely better than your corporate shill fuck the planet bullshit.

1

kaminaowner2 t1_irtk4ab wrote

Actually even our strip mines are becoming more green, as machines that once where gas powered are becoming electric. Right now every ton of lithium lets out about a 2 tons of carbon, but that number is both dropping and less than a gas powered vehicle produces in a year. So as long as you drive your EV for 5 plus years yes, it is unapologetically a step in the right direction.

5

Fritzo2162 t1_irs2zzh wrote

This only makes sense. It's going to be tied to the renewable energy industry, and there's a strong push for that due to political climates and climate change. I myself started weighing my portfolio heavily in those areas.

53

Youtube-Gerger t1_irswytw wrote

I disagree, clean coal is surely better!

/s

15

MorkelVerlos t1_irv7vva wrote

We can all agree that having a clean coalon is important

2

djens89 t1_irv1ov3 wrote

Clean «coal» exists. Check out NextFuel.

1

Kindly_Weird_5966 t1_irtf019 wrote

What company are on your watching list ?

2

ChoppedCoriander t1_iru2q5i wrote

There’s a small EV company w the ticker TSLA that I’ve been following recently

1

mark-haus t1_irv6x4t wrote

Yeah I hear they're absurdly overvalued and their CEO does pretty shady stuff with his disclosures.

3

climeworks OP t1_irrb8k7 wrote

We're at a point where reduction is not enough anymore. We need to remove emissions as well.

To be specific: The United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change (IPCC) says the use of carbon removal technologies is already “unavoidable” if we want to meet our climate goals, and that by 2050 we’ll need to remove and store 5-16 billion tons per year.

Companies that produce technologies to remove or reduce carbon emissions are “poised for strong continued growth,” reaching an expected value of $1.4 trillion by 2027, according to new market research.

PitchBook predicts that the emerging sector will enjoy an 8.8 percent growth rate over the next five years, “thanks to increasing global focus on aggressive emissions targets and consumer interest in emissions reduction.” That rate could also increase if there were “dramatic regulatory change or technological innovation” during that time, the report for investors said.

38

grundar t1_irs1w9b wrote

> by 2050 we’ll need to remove and store 5-16 billion tons per year.

This is the key point.

Direct air capture of CO2 is far too small-scale to be an excuse to slow down emissions reduction; that's not even on the table.

What DAC is useful for is:

  • (1) Offsetting hard-to-decarbonize edge cases.
  • (2) Reducing atmospheric CO2 to minimize overshoot.

To accomplish either of those goals, though, DAC will need to be deployed at a massive scale mid-century, and research shows it takes decades to scale up to that level of operations. Scaling up a large industry by 10x takes ~15 years, and there's less than two of those before 2050.

So the point of working on DAC now is not to have an excuse to delay emissions reductions; nobody serious is proposing that.
The point of working on DAC now is so it will be available at the scale needed in mid-century.

Mitigation at this scale takes decades of preparation.

26

Velocipedique t1_irrcjau wrote

The growth to the growth IS the problem, greenwashing it all you can will not put Humpty back together again.

11

wyl1e t1_irrvnu3 wrote

DAC is all greenwashed bullshit. Just another way for the biggest polluters to avoid accountability and this is what our governments are funding!? What a fucking shame.

5

climeworks OP t1_irs01s7 wrote

Hey, thanks for your comment, but allow us to jump in here quickly.

We don't want to avoid emission reduction, quite the contrary: we always preach "reduction" first, "removal" second.

DAC+S goes beyond reducing emissions because it allows to remove residual and historic CO2 emissions that are already in the atmosphere, which produces negative emissions.

Unfortunately the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change (IPCC) says the use of carbon removal technologies is already “unavoidable” if we want to meet our climate goals, and that by 2050 we’ll need to remove and store 5-16 billion tons per year.
Read more here:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/07/05/1055322/we-need-to-draw-down-carbon-not-just-stop-emitting-it/
https://time.com/6197651/carbon-credits-fight-climate-change/

10

wyl1e t1_irs3rdc wrote

Carbon Credits are an absolute joke. DAC is extremely cost inefficient and is a distraction we should stop pushing. Corporate accountability is the first and best way and we need our governments on board. Everything else is a waste of time and money.

Edit: How about those natural "DAC" things we have on earth, called trees? How about changing the way we farm and dropping this money into subsidizing new practices instead of these big useless fans?

8

Emerging-Dudes t1_irsh3wo wrote

Exactly. The best way to reduce carbon emissions is for wealthy nations to consume less, and best way to sequester carbon is to regenerate topsoils worldwide. Transition away from industrial, fertilizer based food production towards regenerative agriculture and permaculture. Oh, and plant more trees, whilst also putting a stop to deforestation for beef and pork production.

DAC is just another way for “technology” companies squeeze blood from the stone that is late stage capitalism.

3

kaminaowner2 t1_irtknu8 wrote

See when you guys say this history actually does say you’re wrong, we have screwed up environments and even our Ozone layer and fixed it, when people care about something the market(literally just our collective will) does acknowledge it. The Ozone is healing and the wolfs and bison are back. We control this planet and Humpy turns out to be child’s play to us to put back together.

1

Synergythepariah t1_irsm48n wrote

>We're at a point where reduction is not enough anymore. We need to remove emissions as well.

We're at that point because the investor class in the past didn't care about any of that stuff - and because it wasn't able to be profitable in the short term.

Now that it's becoming more and more obviously necessary, investment is shifting toward those technologies and they're becoming profitable - now that there's money to be made, the investor class is embracing the idea of doing something about climate change.

And an aspect of futurology is imagining a future that isn't more of the same thing where people only give a shit about a problem when solving it has economic benefit.

You're getting criticism here because people look at this and know that it's going to be used the same way offsets have been used and because this whole post is a sales pitch.

It's not even really about your product, it's that it's fucking depressing that our entire economic structure is built in a way that a problem even one that threatens the existence of society as we know it is all but ignored until solving it becomes profitable - then in comes the investor class, swooping in to save us from the problem that they created in the first place.

2

motions2u2wipemyass t1_irtz8nx wrote

I remember reading that carbon removal is completely unviable.

I forgot who it was, but some leading expert in carbon removal who spent 10 years studying it and developing it eventually gave up and doesn't think it is a worthwhile investment.

1

john6644 t1_irs3n8v wrote

I've heard carbon capture is a myth. The only way to reduce carbon effectively is to pollute less in every aspect. I'm willing to hear about breakthrough tech but, lets not play ourselves. We are living past our means as a species, and we have been for awhile now.

−3

boersc t1_irrn80j wrote

tech companies that remove/reduce CO₂ emissions"

Aka tech companies that sell hot air.

9

climeworks OP t1_irrp86c wrote

Hey, since we're the leader in direct air capture technology, we wanted to jump in here real quick and assure you: We're not selling hot air.

We offer the highest-quality carbon removal on the market (only company with a 5-star rating in CarbonPlan’s database: https://carbonplan.org/research/cdr-database/project?id=MSFT047)

Additionally, together with our CO₂ storage partner Carbfix we just developed the world's first full-chain certification methodology dedicated to carbon dioxide removal via direct air capture and underground mineralization storage. This methodology has been validated by the independent quality and assurance leader DNV (read more here: https://climeworks.com/news/certification-methodology-for-permanent-carbon-removal.

But just so we're all on the same page: one measure alone will not be sufficient to mitigate climate change, we need all solutions working together. We need to do everything we can to reduce emissions, and on top of that actively remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

5

fungussa t1_irsm3q8 wrote

Do you have an idea how much the cost, of removing of a tonne of atmospheric CO2, will reduce in the next 5 or 10 years?

3

wyl1e t1_irrukco wrote

DAC is a huge waste of time and money. It's just another way for the biggest polluters (large corporations) to avoid accountability and change their ways. What a shame.

1

boersc t1_irrqcsx wrote

Hot air then.

Sorry, but I find this 'active removal of CO2 out of the air' a completely wrong method of trying to combat climate change.

We in The Netherlands had farmers that were tricked into spending fortunes to create 'clever stables', which worked in theory but had a net zero effect in practice.

−3

AJWinky t1_irrw2fz wrote

Look how much money we can make selling the solution to the problem we created in trying to make a lot of money.

Anyway, it's great there aren't other problems we could be solving.

7

SassHole1756 t1_irs27vo wrote

I don't see that valuation being possible until the tech evolves. They need a way to use the CO2 they capture and market it.

7

SnowyNW t1_irs45vg wrote

We should focus on pivoting from a consumer economy to a service and arts economy such as the renaissance, instead of squandering the current wealth, we could enter into a golden age of society while simultaneously preserving the ecosystem.

5

asdner t1_irv8sim wrote

We should team up and create a movement, I've been thinking exactly the same regarding a degrowth utopia - wealth and money should go into ideas, art and culture which have a very low material footprint but generate a lot of happiness and fulfilment.

1

SnowyNW t1_irxhls4 wrote

I would be surprised if many didn’t already exist. There are quite a few very dedicated communes all around the globe. One I’ve found interesting is the earth ship people, and all the hippies in Hawaii haha. But I’m definitely down to start our own. Create a bunch of cool stuff!

2

currentpattern t1_irsmgxl wrote

What are some good stocks related to this that I research?

4

Labius t1_irswodm wrote

"green" stocks are just another marketing gimmick to sell underperforming companies to consumers. I should know, I've been bagholding for years.

1

currentpattern t1_irtitou wrote

That wasn't exactly my question. My question is specifically, how can we/I invest in the "emerging climate tech sector" that will, according to this article, enjoy an 8.8% growth over the next five years?

3

ronomaly t1_irspp0l wrote

I’ll believe it when I see major investors go in big.

2

Xycotic t1_irt0v2h wrote

Which companies are public and are have the most consistent development and growth?

2

SC2sam t1_irudjsy wrote

Oh good! Another easily abusable economic bubble that will collapse sending the global economy into another tail spin ultimately to push rich people to richer heights and poor people to being more poor. What exactly are they selling other than the limitation of domestic productions for western countries?

2

FuturologyBot t1_irrey45 wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/climeworks:

We're at a point where reduction is not enough anymore. We need to remove emissions as well.

To be specific: The United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change (IPCC) says the use of carbon removal technologies is already “unavoidable” if we want to meet our climate goals, and that by 2050 we’ll need to remove and store 5-16 billion tons per year.

Companies that produce technologies to remove or reduce carbon emissions are “poised for strong continued growth,” reaching an expected value of $1.4 trillion by 2027, according to new market research.

PitchBook predicts that the emerging sector will enjoy an 8.8 percent growth rate over the next five years, “thanks to increasing global focus on aggressive emissions targets and consumer interest in emissions reduction.” That rate could also increase if there were “dramatic regulatory change or technological innovation” during that time, the report for investors said.

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/y0er0z/the_emerging_climate_tech_sector_will_enjoy_an_88/irrb8k7/

1

bloonail t1_irudo3e wrote

If CO2 removal was effective and could change the climate it would be banned. In practice directed and effective climate change is extremely dangerous. Massive lawsuits would ensue. Millions could die.

1

user4517proton t1_irujoz5 wrote

Soley because of Federal funds not innovation, just like Obamas waist of $120B in his term.

1

sutsithtv t1_irutuqc wrote

Currently the cheapest carbon removal we have is $65/ton. If we were just to try to break even in one year, it would use more capital than the entire world has, reduction is our only chance but capitalism refuses to stop burning fossil fuels and funding animal agriculture…

1

maldobar4711 t1_irvuaik wrote

It's all about fusion - if u have clean unlimited energy.. everything can be changed

1

Black_RL t1_irvvvuk wrote

Create the problem, sell the solution.

Capitalism working as intended, this sounds promising though.

1

throwawayhyperbeam t1_irsrcid wrote

So who here is going all in on their portfolio? I bet not OP.

0