![]() ![]() You would think it would be obvious for socialists to align with labor, but the ideological pull of a small-scale, decentralized energy system looms large on the climate left today. The Left is currently split between environmental organizations who typically advocate a narrow technical vision of decarbonization (solar, wind, and batteries) and unions who see their interests in a much broader suite of technologies (including carbon capture but also nuclear power). ![]() It would take 10,000 DAC hubs with the capacity of the ones funded on Friday to reach it.Ī political bonus of accepting the scientific necessity of carbon capture is that labor unions strongly support scaling up the technology as a means to maintain and expand industrial jobs with historically high levels of unionization (e.g., pipeline construction for CO2 and power plants with CCS). ![]() James Temple points out:īy some estimates, nations may have to collectively pull down some 10 billion tons a year by midcentury to have a good shot at keeping the planet from warming beyond 2☌. ![]() In fact, you could say the Biden administration’s plans for carbon removal are woefully insufficient compared to what is required. Assuming we want to live in a society with cement and fertilizer, we need either to find a way to capture the emissions at the source or to compensate for them with direct air capture. For example, making cement creates a byproduct of carbon dioxide (the industry itself is estimated to be responsible for around 7-8 percent of global emissions), and applying nitrogen fertilizer to soil creates greenhouse gas emissions. Second, there are some forms of emissions - scientists call them “ residual emissions” - for which there are no clear technological pathways to mitigation. First, we’ve emitted so much carbon already that even if we stopped emissions tomorrow, we would still need to deal with the already massive amount of carbon in the atmosphere. That is because of two material realities. The problem with environmentalist opposition to carbon capture is that climate scientists agree we probably need a lot of it to avoid a catastrophic level of warming above 2 degrees Celsius. Most climate justice organizations fiercely oppose the technology as, at best, an unproven “false solution” or, at worst, a cynical ploy by the fossil fuel industry to justify continued operations for decades to come. There are few topics more controversial on the climate left than carbon capture and storage (CCS), a variety of technologies aimed at capturing carbon dioxide and storing it (usually in geological depositories). While “Bidenomics” has so far mostly involved using the fiscal power of the state to shower money on the private sector (and “ de-risk” investments), the challenge of carbon removal could be an opportunity to rebuild state capacity and reinstantiate the role of the public sector in making visible investments in socially useful work and environmental restoration. Like much “waste management,” the disposing of carbon should be a public service not a for-profit business. Of course, some carbon dioxide can be captured and sold as inputs for a variety of uses (soda production, refrigeration, welding, and so on), but most of it has no market whatsoever. While scientists are clear that we need some level of carbon capture and storage to avoid the worst effects of climate change, it is less clear why the government should pay capitalists - let alone oil companies - to do it. Of that total, the recipients of $1.2 billion were announced, with roughly half going to the oil and gas company Occidental Petroleum and most of the rest going to a partnership of companies including Battelle, Climeworks, and Heirloom.Īs the Financial Times explained, the aim of this latter program is to kick-start the direct air capture industry: “The White House hopes the grants will help commercialise the air capture process, driving down costs and spurring a buildout across the country.” The first program, approved by congressional appropriations last year, deploys $35 million to “establish a competitive purchasing pilot program for the purchase of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere or upper hydrosphere.” The second, part of the bipartisan infrastructure bill, is a larger $3.5 billion program to develop “direct air capture” (DAC) facilities across the country. Last week, it announced two major “carbon removal” programs meant to capture carbon and bury it safely underground. The Joe Biden administration not only wants to reduce emissions from energy use - it is also aiming to actively remove carbon from the atmosphere. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |