Can Carbon Removal Bring Us to Net Zero? | The Climate Debates

In the run-up to Earth Day, Rolling Stone held a series of three debates, each focusing on a different contentious climate solution: solar geoengineering, carbon removal, and how quickly we can and should stop using natural gas.

The climate crisis is caused by the burning of fossil fuels, which dumps billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. The CO2 traps heat, causing our atmosphere to warm up fast. So doesn’t it make sense to figure out a way to remove some of that CO2 from the atmosphere?

That’s the topic of this debate: carbon removal. Everyone knows that trees suck CO2 out of the atmosphere. But is it possible to build what amounts to artificial trees that basically accelerate that process, doing it on a massive scale that would rival the infrastructure of the oil-and-gas industry that exists today? This might sound outlandish, expensive, or impractical, but carbon removal is increasingly seen as a necessary technology to reach net zero CO2 emissions in the future.

What are the climate justice implications of carbon removal? Is it just another false promise pushed by the oil-and-gas industry that would allow them to continue pumping and burning fossil fuels for another few decades?

Joining Rolling Stone for this debate are Elizabeth Yeampierre of UPROSE and Julio Friedmann of the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University.

[reallyidrathernot.]

Yeampierre did badly. I agree: colonialism has not be dealt with, it's still on going, and being mad af is reasonable, absolutely, but she just seemed unreasonable and not responding to the discussion that was happening. Arguing against capture because vaguely gesturing at colonialism and ignoring points just sucked. As did calling Friedmann "triggered". Reminded me heaps of the terminally online left who can do nothing but lose.

[quadpumped]

Forests are doing carbon removal pretty well, something that we are busy destroying at light speed..

[arnoldwatkins]

This is an ideological conversation posing as science. Lmao

[reallyidrathernot.]

at 28:00 Yeampierre's argument is that she's absolutely against carbon capture, and also no know knows if it's bad.

[reallyidrathernot.]

Vaush bad! Vau- wait, uh sorry, wrong video. Seriously though I'm bummed out that dialogue immediately broke down.

[Hadenought]

Wait, what? Did he just say Clean Coal?

[dabbyj]

Carbon monoxide and dioxide filter removers I was thinking of this 40 years ago in the Devore Canyon in California living in Arrowhead as a young man crazy there talking about it now.

[JakeHelliwell-hq]

that mans shirt is atrocious. is he having a mid-life crisis or something?

[reallyidrathernot.]

"in 2042 we become the majority in this country" I honestly believe that conservatives invented "identity politics" as a strawperson, and then some leftists internalised that unironically.

[ethanwindmillsky]

Unsubscribing from rolling Stone. Taibbi was telling the truth about the fake wars and you fire him? Rolling Stone has now gone full establishment. Nixon would be proud

[corkiecork]

23:00 He asks her a direct question then gets super pissy when she trys to answer.
Then when he is asked why multi billion dollar companies need government money to try carbon capture he says we only got 5 billion dollars.

[jamesstuart]

Invade Colombia & get their lithium! Do bombs count as pollution?

[sammmmysin]

oh my god. jesus willing. do your own research people

[yurona]

Assignment for honing your critical thinking skills: In what way exactly are the numbers given at 8:26 purposefully misleading and - by extension - show the paid liar in the tribal shirt to be full of **it? ;)

Obvious answer to anyone with even a middle school-level understanding of chemistry and physics (i.e. anyone who can spell the term 'energy level'): Theoretically it can, practically it cannot. Capturing gaseous CO2 (no matter its concentration) is the most idiotically ineffecient way - we're talking orders of magnitude in additional energy expenditure - of reducing atmospheric carbon. It is a very industry-friendly approach though and a convenient pacifier for those whose environmental conscience has not been totally propagandized away yet...

[markkrzmarzick]

I've come to believe that carbon capture is extremely important (along with reductions in outputs), but I can't find a lot of reasons that Direct Air Capture is the best way to do this. She brings up the known issues with it, and he just laughs and brushes them away and provides metaphorical nonsense about batteries in defense -- it is somewhat nauseating. Good scientific ideas don't require random metaphors about other technologies. Usually, DAC is more about getting CO2 that can be pumped into oil fields to enhance oil recovery in older oil fields. Using it to get government funds for the purposes of climate change sounds like a trojan horse. Like most industry promoted research -- there is a public side used to get funds and university partners, and then there is closely held profit side of that same research that they are really after.

[hansintakt]

she just says to be generous to exxon is not understandable, because she lost 4 relatives to covid.

[hansintakt]

she just reads her answers off a screen!