Actually this solves a very important problem. If we stop all pollution and carbon emissions today the earth will still be heated up significantly for the next thousand years or so. Enough that life will be more than uncomfortable, we’ll have massive water shortages, widespread desertification, and wholesale extinctions of many plants and animals.
We need carbon sequestration if we want to control the damage already done.
I would love to see some actual numbers on how much greenhouse gasses we release in the process of carbon sequestration. If we’re using carbon energy sources that emit more than they capture then we’re making the problem worse. I kind of doubt the US is going to use solar, wind, nuclear, and hydro to sequester carbon right now.
By definition it isn’t carbon sequestration if the grams CO2 equivalent (gCO2e) isn’t negative after a full lifecycle study. Lifecycle studies are somewhat contentious as you might imagine since they try to encompass so much in one number, but generally studies agree that the major proposals are strongly negative.
There’s no notion that it has to be have a net negative CO impact, which is exactly what I assume businesses and politicians rely on. They can say “we’re putting away carbon”, which is technically true, but they don’t have to say how much carbon was used in order to do so.
IMO, until at least the carbon cost of sequestration is reported instead of just the monetary cost, the contracts aren’t worth the paper they are written on.
Actually this solves a very important problem. If we stop all pollution and carbon emissions today the earth will still be heated up significantly for the next thousand years or so. Enough that life will be more than uncomfortable, we’ll have massive water shortages, widespread desertification, and wholesale extinctions of many plants and animals.
We need carbon sequestration if we want to control the damage already done.
I would love to see some actual numbers on how much greenhouse gasses we release in the process of carbon sequestration. If we’re using carbon energy sources that emit more than they capture then we’re making the problem worse. I kind of doubt the US is going to use solar, wind, nuclear, and hydro to sequester carbon right now.
By definition it isn’t carbon sequestration if the grams CO2 equivalent (gCO2e) isn’t negative after a full lifecycle study. Lifecycle studies are somewhat contentious as you might imagine since they try to encompass so much in one number, but generally studies agree that the major proposals are strongly negative.
You can read more about that here for a few of the more likely candidates. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration#Geologic_carbon_sequestration
I think that should be the definition, but looking at the wikipedia page that you shared, it doesn’t seem to be. At least not by:
There’s no notion that it has to be have a net negative CO impact, which is exactly what I assume businesses and politicians rely on. They can say “we’re putting away carbon”, which is technically true, but they don’t have to say how much carbon was used in order to do so.
IMO, until at least the carbon cost of sequestration is reported instead of just the monetary cost, the contracts aren’t worth the paper they are written on.