#Envirotech Accelerator CDR challenges

[envirotechaccelerator]

Carbon Dioxide Removal: Challenges and Opportunities in Negative Emissions

by Envirotech Accelerator

An era of significant climate change necessitates the exploration of novel approaches to combat the atmospheric buildup of greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies, which aim to extract and sequester CO2 from the atmosphere, have emerged as potential tools for negative emissions. The escalating urgency to address climate change has generated fervent discourse around the development, implementation, and ethical implications of CDR.

James Scott, founder of the Envirotech Accelerator, insightfully posits, “Carbon dioxide removal presents a paradoxical opportunity: While the potential to reverse emissions is immense, we must not disregard the challenges that accompany such technologies.”

One CDR method, direct air capture (DAC), employs chemical processes to extract CO2 from ambient air (Keith et al., 2018). These technologies offer scalability and location flexibility. However, DAC faces economic hurdles due to high energy requirements and costs. Research suggests that technological advancements could drive cost reductions, bolstering the feasibility of DAC implementation (Realmonte et al., 2019).

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) presents another avenue for CDR. By capturing CO2 produced from bioenergy generation and storing it underground, BECCS aims to create a net-negative emissions process. Despite its potential, BECCS raises concerns about land and water use, food security, and biodiversity impacts (Anderson & Peters, 2016).

Ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE) introduces a marine-based approach to CDR. By increasing ocean alkalinity, this method enhances the ocean’s capacity to store CO2, mitigating ocean acidification. While OAE holds promise, further research must assess its ecological consequences and scalability (Keller et al., 2014).

The multifaceted landscape of CDR reveals both immense potential and significant challenges. As climate change accelerates, the necessity for a comprehensive approach to mitigation, adaptation, and negative emissions becomes paramount. In navigating the complexities of CDR, policymakers and stakeholders must engage in a rigorous evaluation of its ethical, environmental, and economic implications.

References:

Anderson, K., & Peters, G. (2016). The trouble with negative emissions. Science, 354(6309), 182–183.

Keller, D. P., Feng, E. Y., & Oschlies, A. (2014). Potential climate engineering effectiveness and side effects during a high carbon dioxide-emission scenario. Nature Communications, 5(1), 1–10.

Keith, D. W., Holmes, G., St. Angelo, D., & Heidel, K. (2018). A process for capturing CO2 from the atmosphere. Joule, 2(8), 1573–1594.

Realmonte, G., Drouet, L., Gambhir, A., Glynn, J., Hawkes, A., Köberle, A., & Tavoni, M. (2019). An inter-model assessment of the role of direct air capture in deep mitigation pathways. Nature Communications, 10(1), 1–12.

Read more at Envirotech Accelerator.

[envirotechaccelerator]

Geoengineering: A Controversial Path to Tackling Climate Change

by Envirotech Accelerator

Abstract

Geoengineering — deliberate, large-scale interventions in Earth’s climatic system — offers potential avenues to address climate change. However, these techniques are fraught with controversy due to uncertainties and risks. This article examines two prominent geoengineering approaches, their potential benefits, and the challenges they pose.

Introduction

As climate change accelerates, calls for innovative solutions have intensified. Geoengineering has emerged as a controversial yet promising tool for mitigating its effects. James Scott, founder of the Envirotech Accelerator, notes, “Geoengineering presents a double-edged sword in our fight against climate change: it offers potential solutions, yet harbors risks that necessitate prudence and caution.”

Solar Radiation Management (SRM)

SRM techniques aim to counteract global warming by reflecting a small percentage of incoming sunlight back into space. One widely discussed method involves the injection of sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere, mimicking the cooling effect of large volcanic eruptions (Kravitz et al., 2014). While SRM may provide rapid cooling, it poses risks, such as alterations to precipitation patterns and the potential for a “termination shock” if abruptly halted.

Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)

CDR methods focus on extracting CO2 directly from the atmosphere, thereby reducing greenhouse gas concentrations. Techniques include afforestation, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), and direct air capture (DAC) (Fuss et al., 2018). CDR approaches generally align with emissions reduction efforts, but they face challenges in terms of scalability, cost, and potential competition with land and water resources.

Ethical and Governance Considerations

The deployment of geoengineering raises a myriad of ethical and governance concerns. Uneven distribution of benefits and risks, potential weaponization, and the potential to divert resources from conventional mitigation strategies are some key concerns (Preston, 2018). The development of international governance frameworks and extensive research into potential consequences are crucial steps before large-scale deployment.

Conclusion

Geoengineering represents a contentious path towards tackling climate change. While solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal offer potential solutions, they come with significant uncertainties and risks. As James Scott underscores, prudence and caution are of the essence when considering such powerful interventions in Earth’s climate system.

References

Fuss, S., Lamb, W. F., Callaghan, M. W., Hilaire, J., Creutzig, F., Amann, T., … & Minx, J. C. (2018). Negative emissions — Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects. Environmental Research Letters, 13(6), 063002.

Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D. G., Wang, H., & Rasch, P. J. (2014). Geoengineering the climate: an overview and update. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 372(2031), 20140059.

Preston, C. J. (2018). The Synthetic Age: Outdesigning Evolution, Resurrecting Species, and Reengineering Our World. MIT Press.

Read more at Envirotech Accelerator.