Background: the plan calls for 125 million tons of negative emissions. It doesn't rely on buying negative emissions elsewhere in the world— it finds them all in CA.
-
-
Prikaži ovu nit
-
It doesn't rely too heavily on natural and working lands (25 MT) or direct air capture (16 MT). Instead, it foregrounds waste management - utilizing waste biomass (84MT).
Prikaži ovu nit -
Transforming how we use waste is something that we need to do anyway! And CA has already expressed some commitments, such as SB 1383, with the goal of reducing 75% of organic waste in landfills by 2025.
Prikaži ovu nit -
In fact, they could have framed this work in terms of the bioeconomy or circular economy, and made that the focus, with CDR as a side benefit. There's a broader case for treating carbon management as waste management...
Prikaži ovu nit -
laid out by Lackner &
@cjospe (https://bit.ly/3aXuYCI ). In their view, carbon disposal is a public good, just like waste management. This is elegant, because treating CO2 as something that needs to be recovered and turned into value is politically neutral.Prikaži ovu nit -
Historically, when societies adopted waste management in the Progressive era, they did so bc of public health issues. Much of this waste management ended up either (a) becoming public projects, or (b) failing. It wasn't a market opportunity.
Prikaži ovu nit -
Historians have also identified a positive feedback loop with sewage treatment, for example, where visible changes in cleaner cities from new technologies led to more support for paying for social programs and a strong role of government.
Prikaži ovu nit -
I worry we may be in a negative feedback loop with new tech, where perceived negative impacts erodes public trust and faith in the role of public guidance — especially here in CA.
Prikaži ovu nit -
Respondents I spoke to for a study of decarbonization in CA's Imperial Valley expressed concern in the faith of CA to plan, finance and execute big infrastructure projectshttps://bit.ly/38OISoP
Prikaži ovu nit -
Back to this view of carbon management as part of the circular economy: it's elegant but also dangerous, because valuing the waste also normalizes production of it. This brings me to one key drawback of the CA study.
Prikaži ovu nit -
Why is the goal to remove 125 million tons of CO2? This choice isn't up-front and explicit. Where are the residual emissions that these negative emissions are compensating for? This is a wider flaw in the NETs literature.
Prikaži ovu nit -
The source of the residual emissions matters, from a social standpoint. Typically residual emissions are assumed to be from hard-to-mitigate sectors, like steel or transportation. But that hides particular actors.
Prikaži ovu nit -
That is, is the public going to bear the cost of negative emissions so that private jets can keep flying, and the public can demand SUVs? Or so that steel can be made to create new wind turbines?
Prikaži ovu nit -
Are residual emissions simply allocated to the highest bidder, w/o concern for social good? I can think of no policy document or scientific analysis where this is addressed.
Prikaži ovu nit -
But in general, this study of NETs seems a rigorous analysis, and the system cost of $8.1 billion / year for CA's carbon removal seems doable & cheap. I hope CA can live up to its potential here!
Prikaži ovu nit
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.
.... yes.