# How Can We Address Climate Change Besides Limiting Emissions? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 20, 2022, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-address-climate-change-besides-limiting-emissions/968265 "2022-07-20T15:34:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![am77494](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d2c977/32.png) [@am77494](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/am77494)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2022, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-address-climate-change-besides-limiting-emissions/968265/221 "2022-08-11T16:37:27Z")
> [@md-2000](#): > > I fail to see why it’s necessary to capture CO2 in Japan. Instead of capturing it and shipping it thousands of miles, would it probably be cheaper to suck it out of the ambient air in the Australian desert (and, process powered by solar power also). It’s coming from the same atmosphere, just not as concentrated a source. Sea water contains from 0.001 to 44 ppb (parts per billion) gold. The amounts of gold in fresh surface waters and ground waters are also within this range. Cite : [https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1970/0625/report.pdf](https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1970/0625/report.pdf) A good gold mine has around 10 g/ton (10,000 ppb) Cite : [What Does the Grade of a Gold Mine Refer To?](https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/022315/what-does-grade-gold-mine-refer.asp) So the ratio of general gold concentration on earth versus a viable mine is about 10,000. The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is 412 ppm cite : [https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide/#:~:text=The%20concentration%20of%20carbon%20dioxide,it%20was%20near%20370%20ppm](https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide/#:~:text=The%20concentration%20of%20carbon%20dioxide,it%20was%20near%20370%20ppm). The CO2 concentration in gas turbine exhaust (power plant) is about 5% (50,000 ppm) [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299956512\_Influence\_of\_Gas\_Turbine\_Exhaust\_CO\_2\_Concentration\_on\_the\_Performance\_of\_Post\_Combustion\_Carbon\_Capture\_Plant](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299956512_Influence_of_Gas_Turbine_Exhaust_CO_2_Concentration_on_the_Performance_of_Post_Combustion_Carbon_Capture_Plant) So the ratio from gas turbine exhaust to atmosphere is about 100 (Also note that there is less oxygen in the exhaust compared to turbine exhaust) I hope the above makes it clear why it is easier (less energy intensive) to extract CO2 from exhaust rather than the atmosphere. ---
**Author:** ![Wrenching\_Spanners](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecb155/32.png) [@Wrenching\_Spanners](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenching_Spanners)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2022, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-address-climate-change-besides-limiting-emissions/968265/222 "2022-08-11T17:04:25Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > Even if this is true, the plateau could mean continued ice cap melt with its concurrent sea level rise. Granted it wouldn’t be accompanied by sea level rise caused by water expansion in this hypothetical scenario, but if ice cap melt turns out to be larger than expected, coastal cities and low lying nations would still be at risk in the medium term (i.e. within the lives of some people now living.) That was covered in the last three paragraphs of the web page I linked to. > Finally, while current best estimates suggest that temperatures will stabilise in a zero-emissions world, that does not mean that all climate impacts would cease to worsen. > > [Melting glaciers](https://www.carbonbrief.org/melting-glaciers-drove-21-of-sea-level-rise-over-past-two-decades) and [ice sheets](https://www.carbonbrief.org/new-climate-models-suggest-faster-melting-of-the-greenland-ice-sheet) and [rising sea levels](https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-climate-change-is-accelerating-sea-level-rise) all occur slowly and lag behind surface temperature warming. A zero-emissions world would still result in rising sea levels for many centuries to come, with [some estimates](https://www.pnas.org/content/116/47/23487) suggesting that at least 80cm of additional sea level rise is “locked in”. > > To stop these impacts may, ultimately, require reducing global temperatures through [net-negative global emissions](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-natural-climate-solutions-can-reduce-the-need-for-beccs), not just stopping temperature from rising by reaching net-zero. I think the good news is that if we make it to net-zero, we’ll have learned enough that making it to net-negative won’t be a monumental effort. Which doesn’t mean we won’t lose a lot of beaches and islands, but that we’ll be able to save the Arctic and Antarctic. The bad news is that it will be a monumental effort to get to net-zero and as a global society, I don’t think we’ve even quantified the problem yet, much less come up with a realistic holistic solution. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2022, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-address-climate-change-besides-limiting-emissions/968265/223 "2022-08-11T17:09:36Z")
> [@am77494](#): > > This is an extremely misleading diagram because it makes no judgement on the maturity of technologies. It describes the provisions in last year’s infrastructure bill and other funding opportunities and how they fit together. It’s right there in the title. I can’t what you think it’s going to lead anyone to think that isn’t true. ---
**Author:** ![snowthx](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowthx/32/10660_2.png) [@snowthx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snowthx)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2022, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-address-climate-change-besides-limiting-emissions/968265/224 "2022-08-11T17:12:36Z")
In relation to the trees discussion, what about grasses? Using the same concept of harvesting carbon (via plants) and then shoving it underground. Grasses grow quickly in the spring of each hemisphere, and I assume if there was enough square mileage grasses would capture some amount of carbon. I am not suggesting ripping down forests to plant more grassland, could that be a way to capture some carbon on a large scale? I guess some of the capture would be offset by harvesting, packing, and moving the vegetation to long-term storage. I dunno, just got thinking about it for some reason. Here is an article discussing the approach: > **[The Amazing Ability of Pasture Grass to Sequester Carbon - The Santa Barbara...](https://www.independent.com/2018/04/19/amazing-ability-pasture-grass-sequester-carbon/)** > > The century-old Chamberlin Ranch turns to new techniques that improve rangeland and so much more. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2022, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-address-climate-change-besides-limiting-emissions/968265/225 "2022-08-11T17:15:12Z")
One thing that concerns me about bio-sequestration is depletion of nutrients. With trees, there aren’t too many left in the woody parts that are actually dead, but with grasses, it seems as though they are going to have a higher concentration of nutrients. ---
**Author:** ![snowthx](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowthx/32/10660_2.png) [@snowthx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snowthx)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2022, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-address-climate-change-besides-limiting-emissions/968265/226 "2022-08-11T17:31:57Z")
In [this article](https://www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/topics/grassland-carbon-management), grasses are discussed in terms of how they naturally move carbon below ground thru their root systems. Maybe we should be considering restoring grasslands in addition to forests. ---
**Author:** ![dtilque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d6d6ee/32.png) [@dtilque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dtilque)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2022, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-address-climate-change-besides-limiting-emissions/968265/227 "2022-08-11T17:41:05Z")
> [@md-2000](#): > > As I understand, ships are the least green method of transport unless we’re back to the era of clipper ships. Trains and pipes can be electrified, ships not as easily. Not quite the least green, I think. Your standard diesel semi-truck is probably less green. Those can be electrified and there are several class 8 EVs on the market right now. But the ones on the market so far do not have the range for long-haul trucking plus there’s no network of high voltage chargers needed for that. They’ll be useful for short-haul trips. I’m sure we will electrify the long-haul trucking industry. There’s no network of chargers for them right now, but consider that there was no network of chargers for EV cars just a dozen years ago and now there’s a pretty decent one. Cargo ships can be made more green by using wind-assisted ship propulsion. There’s half a dozen or so different ways to do that, everything from Flettner rotors to kites. They will reduce fuel usage and thus emissions by anywhere from 5 to 20%. Unfortunately, they don’t work with container ships, except maybe kites. > [@md-2000](#): > > How much CO2 could we save by building high capacity freight rail links from China to Europe and possibly across the Bering Strait? We’ve had several threads on a Bering Strait rail line. Conclusion: not going to happen. China to Europe is possible, but electifying it with RE would be a challenge. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2022, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-address-climate-change-besides-limiting-emissions/968265/228 "2022-08-11T18:13:35Z")
> [@am77494](#): > > but this is doomed from the start because of many reasons one of which is that large scale methanation is unproven technology. 1.4 or 3 million cubic meters per year, depending on what news release about the Audi plant you believe. Doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2022, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-address-climate-change-besides-limiting-emissions/968265/229 "2022-08-11T18:43:38Z")
> [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > If we get to a net-zero greenhouse gas situation and the climate hasn’t reached actual crisis levels (as opposed to the hyperbole about today’s climate) The question of what constitutes a “crisis” is of course somewhat of a subjective one, but I think it’s fair to say that both the IPCC and the national science bodies of all the major nations have been unequivocal about the urgency of climate mitigation, based on objective evidence _ **now** _ of the damaging effects of climate change, such as extreme weather, health risks, and imminent risks to food and water supplies. I don’t think it serves a factual or useful purpose to call it “hyperbole”. > [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > **Shortly after CO2 levels peak, temperature rises will reach a plateau.** This is because the greenhouse affect of the CO2 and other greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere will be offset by natural processes, mainly the ocean, that will be removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, leading to a temperature equilibrium. Bolding mine. This statement glosses over so many important nuances that I think it’s fair to just say that it’s flat-out false, or at the very least, extremely misleading. First of all, the concept of net negative emissions, or even net zero emissions, is something that even the most optimistic scenarios see as being, at best, many many decades away. We’re currently tracking somewhere between the two second-worst IPCC emissions pathways, RCP 4.5 and RCP 6 (disregarding the catastrophic outlier RCP 8.5). The numbers refer to the estimated W/m2 of additional net climate forcing power on every single square meter of the earth’s surface by the end of the century. Secondly, the statement can only be true if two forms of magic occur simultaneously – net negative carbon emissions, and an amazing natural carbon uptake that sequesters atmospheric CO2 with amazing speed. In actual fact, CO2 persists in the atmosphere an average of about a century, much of it much longer, and also causes feedbacks like accelerated polar warming that amplifies the effects and adds additional GHGs like methane, from thawing permafrost and undersea methane clathrates, and accelerates warming through reduced albedo. The thing that is the most egregiously misleading here is the implication that if we just reduced our emissions to net zero, global warming would immediately stop and we would immediately be at equilibrium. Completely wrong. There is a very important metric in climate science called equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), defined as the eventual equilibrium temperature reached after a doubling of CO2, and the timeframe to even approach that is centuries, with final equilibrium likely millennia later. Meanwhile, the lag due to slower ocean heat uptake, accelerated polar warming, and other important feedbacks will continue to drive warming. The long-term nature of ECS is precisely why climate models also estimate a more practical short-term metric called transient climate response (TCR) that is assessed in 20-year windows. **[More about those metrics here.](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aba1981)** ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2022, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-address-climate-change-besides-limiting-emissions/968265/230 "2022-08-12T02:45:50Z")
> [@md-2000](#): > > As I understand, ships are the least green method of transport unless we’re back to the era of clipper ships. Trains and pipes can be electrified, ships not as easily. Surprisingly, the era of “clipper ships” [may be making something of a comeback.](https://cleantechnica.com/2022/07/11/high-tech-hard-sails-transform-old-cargo-ships-into-racing-yachts/) > [@](#): > > [BAR](https://www.bartechnologies.uk/) hooked up with [Yara Marine Technologies](https://yaramarine.com/windwings/) a while back to bring its “WindWings” rigid sail technology to cargo ships. The latest shipper to take a look is [Berge Bulk](http://www.bergebulk.com/), which describes itself as “one of the world’s leading independent dry bulk owners with an outstanding reputation for the safe, efficient, and sustainable delivery of commodities around the world.” […] > > The plan is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the _Berge Olympus_, a 210 DWT (deadweight tonnage) bulk carrier by up to 30%. > > That’s pretty impressive for a quick retrofit. Part of the savings will come from the rigid sails, and some will come from optimizing the ship’s route. If the new contract with BAR and Yara satisfies Berge, the company could have an outsized impact on the global industry. > > “This contract strengthens Berge Bulk’s commitment to pioneer the shipping industry’s decarbonisation journey. They will be an early adopter of [wind-assisted propulsion technology](https://www.prnewswire.com/in/news-releases/berge-bulk-vessel-to-sail-with-windwings-in-2023-872018064.html), evaluating a pivotal technology to reduce the emissions of its bulker fleet,” Yara and BAR explained in a joint press release earlier this week. [ETA: as dtilque already mentioned, actually.] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-address-climate-change-besides-limiting-emissions/968265.md?page=11)