David HoSo…I wrote a thing. Now there’s a citation for the “CDR as Time Machine” analogy.
Carbon dioxide removal (#CDR) is not a current climate solution — we need to change the narrative
In three days, this has been read more than all the things I’ve written in the last 30 years combined. 😩
John Kennedy@davidho It could be worse. The most read thing I ever wrote - by a few orders of magnitude - was a twitter thread about getting an orange stuck in my mouth.
@micefearboggis I want to be on the record as one of the first to recognize the genius of that thread and retweet it.
@davidho Duly noted.
Carlos Moffat@micefearboggis @davidho a colleague of mine used to joke that his most read piece of writing was a very well regarded TripAdvisor review of a mid priced resort.
Dr Rebecca Nestor@micefearboggis @davidho oh yes, this work of genius https://diagrammonkey.wordpress.com/2022/08/06/some-scientists-think/
@rebeccaclimate @davidho Yes. That one. I hadn't really twigged what I'd done until someone pointed out that whatever I had done, whatever I will do, my most famous contribution to science will always be that twitter thread.
@micefearboggis @davidho parts of it remind me of the scene in A Fish Called Wanda where Kevin Kline is torturing Michael Palin by putting a pear in his mouth and chips up his nostrils. Crying laughing, and also moments of ‘how did John survive that?’ anxiety. You may have a second career waiting…
Ruth Mottram@rebeccaclimate @micefearboggis @davidho my colleague Steffen spent 25 years researching #ClimateChange and the North Atlantic.
And then he took and shared this photo..
(https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/18/photograph-melting-greenland-sea-ice-fjord-dogs-water)
@micefearboggis @rebeccaclimate @davidho yeah it was quite a week for those of us back in the office too...
@rebeccaclimate @micefearboggis @davidho well the image went pretty viral and I spent about 5 days answering journalists phone calls, Steffen being almost completely out of touch in Greenland..
And then one of the press outlets in Denmark made an FOI request to check we hadn't said something that was scientifically inaccurate (we hadn't).
And I'm pretty sure neither of us will ever make as deep a social impact with our science than that photo...
And then one of the press outlets in Denmark made an FOI request to check we hadn't said something that was scientifically inaccurate (we hadn't).
And I'm pretty sure neither of us will ever make as deep a social impact with our science than that photo...
Hugo@davidho It’s such an important message and I am glad it is getting a lot of well deserved attention
Azazel@davidho reads are reads, congratulations on the good metrics
Jim Smoot@davidho well reasoned essay. Thank you!
Torbjörn Björkman@davidho Thank you for this great citation to the mismatch-of-scales problem we're having here.
Just knowing physics, my only argument against CDR has been that very basic thermodynamics (the 2nd law to be precise) tells us that it's foolish in the extreme to invest a lot of work into gathering CO2 from the atmosphere before we've figured out how to stop *producing* work by *dispersing* CO2 into the atmosphere elsewhere in the system.
Cade Johnson@TorbjornBjorkman @davidho what application of 2nd law leads you to think CDR would be foolish? We are surrounded by natural systems that efficiently sort CO2 from air, are we not? (photosynthesis and acidification of rainwater, for examples). Might it not be possible to put people to work on BOTH decarbonizing and CO2 removal? We have hundreds of gigatonnes of CO2 in the air that we have to remove and we need to figure out how to start.
@CadeJohnson @davidho I don't think it's a foolish thing to do per se, and it's fun to think about it. My best bet so far is growing energy forest and then sink it into the nearest peat bog instead of lighting it up.
But I think it is a foolish thing for politicians to pour research money over before they've banned themselves some choal plants.
@CadeJohnson @davidho I worry that there's a degree of escapism about a lot of thinking about this. We want so much to clean up after ourselves, and for there to be *a way* (I'm as guilty of this as anyone). And of course there are things we can do to remove CO2.
But, just as you hint at, most likely we'll end up having to largely rely on nature to do the cleaning up, if for no other reason because natural processes are the only things already operating at the relevant scale.
@CadeJohnson @davidho And, yes, I'm also frustrated about the fact that this is not in fact a scientific problem. It is a political problem. We're doing our bit, which is coming up with alternatives as fast as we can (I wish I knew how to contribute more and better).
But as long as the political will to stop dispersing CO2 in the atmosphere is lacking, the 2nd law works against our efforts. And she's a pretty harsh mistress.
@TorbjornBjorkman @davidho there are many possibilities for CDR to investigate. Come join me at openaircollective.cc and learn more about it and maybe help solve a problem or two?
Actually most of the carbon is thermodynamically safely stored. In the form of carbonates (lime, dolomite). About 80% of all carbon.
Secondly as long as the CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the effects will be increasing. One way or another in due time we need to teach nett zero.
Thirdly I sea a resemblance in the old discussion of climate adaptation would draw away attention from climate mitigation.
And no, CDR is not a time machine, nor "get out of jail for free
Ralph-Uwe Börner@davidho Thanks for sharing!
Fossilcoffee@davidho shared with my students. We’ll be talking about it in climate change class tomorrow.
Threadbane@davidho
So many non-solutions that one gets the impression that one of them will surely work. Shading the Earth from space is another incredibly bad idea, which would literally slow the removal of CO2 and decrease production of oxygen by land plants, seaweed and ocean plankton, not to mention diminishing food production.
So many non-solutions that one gets the impression that one of them will surely work. Shading the Earth from space is another incredibly bad idea, which would literally slow the removal of CO2 and decrease production of oxygen by land plants, seaweed and ocean plankton, not to mention diminishing food production.
Forrest Fleischman@davidho This is sooo good.
@davidho This article kicked off a debate between me and several other CDR-activists. Does saying CDR is something we eventually need but right now our main emphasis should be on decarbonizing (to paraphrase your Nature article) - does saying that constitute a pro-CDR stance or an anti-CDR stance? Of course it may not be particularly pro- OR anti-. I wonder though how do you conclude that decarbonization efforts represent the better option. I mean, even with careful squinting, there seems to be no deflection of the Keeling curve - why would you place faith in decarbonization over CDR? There are scale-up-ready options both ways. I worry that the risk of putting all our eggs in one basket, albeit "decarbonization" is a damned big basket, is more risky than hedging our bets with a mix of decarbonization and CDR. We CDR activists do NOT want to give fossil fuel producers cover, but we also find the accumulated CO2 ominous - are we misguided?
Forrest@davidho this is very good.
A suggestion: to really change the narrative, we should lead with the preferred narrative: that we must reduce emissions first. Switching the subhead for the heading would help!
I also really appreciate the time machine as an explanatory device.