Arguably the same technologies would be used to reach net zero as would be used to go carbon negative. Do you see a meaningful different in strategy based on pause vs reverse, or is it simply a matter of differences in degree (pun unintended) rather than kind?
Yes exactly. Things like cement production or planes may be too challenging to decarbonize or more expensive relative to just CO2 capture. Thanks! I always enjoy reading your thoughts on the intersections of climate change, technology, and science.
Yes I think the strategy is roughly the same! Namely, switch over much of our energy system to non-emitting sources, find alternative production methods for some products, and use CO2 capture for hard-to-abate sources (e.g. planes, gas power plants). Solar radiation management can give us more time to implement these changes.
So I guess what I'm saying is that we should do enough CO2 capture to cancel out new emissions and stop there rather than try to go carbon negative.
Arguably the same technologies would be used to reach net zero as would be used to go carbon negative. Do you see a meaningful different in strategy based on pause vs reverse, or is it simply a matter of differences in degree (pun unintended) rather than kind?
Yes exactly. Things like cement production or planes may be too challenging to decarbonize or more expensive relative to just CO2 capture. Thanks! I always enjoy reading your thoughts on the intersections of climate change, technology, and science.
Yes I think the strategy is roughly the same! Namely, switch over much of our energy system to non-emitting sources, find alternative production methods for some products, and use CO2 capture for hard-to-abate sources (e.g. planes, gas power plants). Solar radiation management can give us more time to implement these changes.
So I guess what I'm saying is that we should do enough CO2 capture to cancel out new emissions and stop there rather than try to go carbon negative.