let's say 300 bucks per tonne of carbon removed from the atmosphere. 10 billion tonnes to stabilize climate. 3 trillion dollars to save the world. should we just spend it all on that? call me, aoc
-
is that how much it costs?
i've seen a lot of figures, from 100 per tonne to 500 or 600. but actually if we had scale on our side i bet it'd be a lot less.
-
-
If that math is real, it actually doesn’t seem that expensive? v. GDP of the global economy
-
It’s kindof a fake problem anyway. Most developed nations could go 80% nuclear power within 2 years if they wanted to. Easier politically to make vague statements of alarm and wait for solar to become cost-effective
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Sounds about right! It’s definitely solvable. We just need the political willhttps://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/the-worlds-biggest-carbon-removal-plant-switches-on/21804774 …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
iirc these are for offsets that often don’t remove carbon (i.e. they reduce carbon footprint of a to-be-built project), actual capture/sequestering approaches $2k/ton. agree this would go down with scale but still prob near impossible legislatively to find this kind of $
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
General consensus is that we need to get solutions for to around $75/ton. Already lower for nature-based solutions, and possible with greater R&D/scale for mineral and DAC Solutions.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.