Great article in the November edition of National Geographic concerning the new technologies being developed to counter the rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
What I especially enjoyed about the article is that it explained the issues concerning both the problem itself, and the attempts to counter it, in words that were easily understood, despite the complexity of the overall problem.
Most people understand the overreaching situation, that since the breakthroughs of the industrial revolution that enabled incredible advances in energy extraction, transportation and distribution, improvements that powered an amazing array of enhancements to the lives of all people, there has also been a substantial increase in CO2 levels in our atmosphere. In other words, the very thing that has been a major factor in drivng the breakthroughs of our modern times, has also created a scenario that is producing as much or more negative consequences as those positive ones to date.
There are two general approaches to addressing the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, slowing the accumulation, and removing what has already been added. Remember, data suggests that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide had been at or below 280 parts per million for thousands of years, but since the mid 19th century has risen to 450 parts per million, an increase of more than 50 percent. As this number has risen, the added carbon traps more and more heat, resulting in an increase in the temperature of the Earth.
I won't go into all the negative ramifications of rising temperatures. Suffice it to say that there is overwhelming evidence that this problem needs to be addressed, and that the issue is, if not completely man-made, being exacerbated by human activity.
But, humans are nothing if not adaptable, and there is no reason to believe that the same intelligence and innovation that was at play to create the advancements of the industrial revolution cannot be applied to reversing the process.
Of course, reducing our carbon emissions is first level. As greener sources of energy have become more cost effective and efficient, we have made major inroads into producing energy without fossil fuels. Unfortunately, our global energy requirements continue to spiral upwards, offsetting much of the gain we are making in generating green energy.
That fact is why carbon capture and carbon removal advocates have become more vocal. Perhaps a few decades ago we could have focused more aggressively on reducing emissions while investing in greener technologies, but now we need to address the issue from both ends.
Carbon capture refers to processes that capture the carbon dioxide being emitted at the point of its creation in the industrial process, whereas carbon removal focuses on taking carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Regardless of which technology being described in the article, and there are many companies, and a number of nations that have made great strides in these areas, there is a range of approaches that promise low to high potential at low to high expense. Of course, all new technologies are expensive at first, see computers and smart phones, but like all burgeoning industries, carbon removal requires huge investments, private and public, now, in hopes that as the cost reduces, more money will flow, more advances will be made, and so on. As more than one entrepreneur who was quoted in the article stated, it is the classic chicken and egg conundrum, in that you need lots of money at the precise time when return is at its lowest.
After reading the article, I am very encouraged that, not only does the technology already exist, but the passion and intelligence of those seeking solutions will produce even better answers.
But, with most of our shared problems, I worry that we don't have the will to do so. From an underlining distrust in science that certain forces selfishly choose to embolden, to the profit motive of the fossil fuel industry that has prevented the cost of climate change to be applied to those creating the problem, to our public servants who either choose to ignore the science or prefer to accept donations from those responsible for the ongoing calamity, thereby eschewing their responsibility to enact laws to protect their constituents, I see more obstacles to turning the tide towards reducing carbon in our atmosphere than aids.
Let's hope I am wrong, and the scientists and business people who were detailed in the article win the day for all of us.
No comments:
Post a Comment