Re: [CDR] Digest for CarbonDioxideRemoval@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 6 topics

[Laura Wasserson]

Thank you for reaching out. I am out of the office until August 28, with limited access to email.

If your matter is urgent and requires immediate attention please contact fl...@climitigation.org or er...@climitigation.org.

For non-urgent matters, I will attend to your email as soon as I return. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and appreciate your understanding.

Best,

Laura

On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 16:53:49 +0200, CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com wrote:

CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

Topic digest
View all topics

• Carbon Engineering and 'the moral hazard' - 13 Updates
• Improved net carbon budgets in the US Midwest through direct measured impacts of enhanced weathering - 2 Updates
• Carbon dioxide reduction by photosynthesis undetectable even during phytoplankton blooms in two lakes - 1 Update
• Seaweed biogeochemistry: Global assessment of C:N and C:P ratios and implications for ocean afforestation - 2 Updates
• 20 point plan - 6 Updates
• Ebb Carbon at Sequim facility, Dept of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) - 1 Update

Carbon Engineering and 'the moral hazard'

Gregory Slater <ten...@gmail.com>: Aug 22 01:21PM -0700 All, Maybe I am just bad at searching the site, but I haven't found much discussion of the recently announced sale of David Keith's 'Carbon Engineering' to Occidental Petroleum for ~$1.1 billion. This announcement came only days after Biden announced hi intent to ask for ~$1.2 billion in aid for two CDR demo plants in Texas and Louisiana. I suppose I should be just grateful as hell that you can sell a pocket CDR test facility for a billion dollars, but I don't trust Occidental's motives in doing this. If selling a CDR company to big oil at this stage doesn't involve the specter of 'moral hazard', then there's no such thing as a moral hazard (which is constantly laid on SAI). Occidental is incentivized to put as much CO2 in the atmosphere as possible so they can make even more money pulling it all out. Gore even had a shocking quote from the Occidental CEO in his recent TED talk (who knows if it was a deepfake).   Did I miss the lively debate over this sale? Send me a link please.   Thank you, Greg Slater

Seth Miller <setha...@gmail.com>: Aug 22 03:33PM -0600 Greg, you didn’t miss anything.   I think the lessons here are that: Oxy is 100% serious about going bit into DAC, using government funded carbon credits in order to extend their existing oil business This makes everyone in the CDR community so uncomfortable that they aren’t celebrating this out loud   Peter Eisenberger wrestled with the uncomfortable part in another thread, which everyone should totally read, but I’ll quote below with formatting cleaned up slightly:   One cannot ask or get the developing world to stop using fossil fuels or make their energy costs higher while their people do not have their basic needs met Even as shown in europe for the developed world stopping to use fossil fuels is not feasible That any industrial revolution has a long transition period - parts of the world are still using wood The energy industry is the only industry that has the experience and capability to make the transition in the time needed Acknowledging the above rather than arguing for stopping fossil fuel now and villainizing the energy industry is needed to reach a global accord and coordination needed to make the transition away from fossil fuels and a natural resource based economy to a Renewable Energy and Materials Economy happen as quickly as possible   Oxy’s decision to pay $1.1 billion for a company with no revenue, and whose technology is still several years away from generating revenue, is bold. It would be unthinkably risky if it did not also offer some hope of extending Oxy's existing oil business. Oxy generates about $20B in profits each year, so even if there is a small chance this purchase of forestalling regulation or obsolescence, they should make the bet.   If nothing else, Oxy seems to be able to think rationally. Oxy has said they are planning to build 100 metago/yr-ish scale DAC facilities globally by 2035. I think the smart money right now is that they intend to follow through. This is obviously contingent on global markets for carbon credits, and Oxy can decide to reverse its investments later. But also, their ambitions are entirely achievable. See Peter’s (4) above in particular.   Is 100 megaton-scale DAC plants bad? I think that yes, the US’s climate credit policy gives some payout to people who don’t give a damn about climate. I also can’t think of an incentive plan that doesn’t have some perverse side effects, and yet we still incentivize and invest. It is very early in 2023 to be saying that we know that this particular set of incentives are bad, or good. Climate is a long game. It seems wrong to judge an investment by its outcome today.   Oxy, being the cold-blooded, rational capitalists they are, is making a bet that might not pay out, but will pay off well if it does. Maybe that last bit is the lesson here. Yes, there is risk to the climate movement that the bet in DAC will go totally sideways. But we are in a crisis. Our future livelihood is threatened. In that context, isn’t it worth taking risk?   I think ambivalence and caution are justified, but it’s worthwhile to put out an audible “yay!” here.     Seth         -------   Seth Miller, Ph.D. www.linkedin.com/in/sethmiller2 Check my blog at: perspicacity.xyz

Peter Flynn <pcf...@ualberta.ca>: Aug 22 03:51PM -0600 The statement “this makes everyone in the CDR community so uncomfortable that they aren’t celebrating…” is an overstatement.       Fossil fuels have conveyed staggering benefits to humanity, with late recognition of a serious and terrible consequence not due to the use of energy but rather to the end byproduct of that energy. If the byproduct were to be fully dealt with, then at least one member of the CDR community, me, is comfortable with ongoing use. I can envision a future in which legacy emissions are captured and paid for by DAC primarily funded by those societies that historically created the emissions, and in which ongoing emissions are captured and paid for by DAC paid for by the user of the fuel. If a fossil fuel is economic in the future with full offset….ok by me. There is much suspicion of all energy producers, warranted in my opinion way more for some than others. We are moving to sufficiently accurate measurement and verification to know whether incremental emissions are truly offset. I think our future is better assured if we focus on results and not villains.       Peter       Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.   Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers   Department of Mechanical Engineering   University of Alberta   Edmonton, Alberta, Canada   1 928 451 4455   peter...@ualberta.ca                       *From:* carbondiox...@googlegroups.com < carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> *On Behalf Of *Seth Miller *Sent:* Tuesday, August 22, 2023 3:33 PM *To:* Gregory Slater <ten...@gmail.com> *Cc:* Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com> *Subject:* Re: [CDR] Carbon Engineering and 'the moral hazard'       Greg, you didn’t miss anything.       I think the lessons here are that:   1. Oxy is 100% serious about going bit into DAC, using government funded carbon credits in order to extend their existing oil business 2. This makes everyone in the CDR community so uncomfortable that they aren’t celebrating this out loud       Peter Eisenberger wrestled with the uncomfortable part in another thread, which everyone should totally read, but I’ll quote below with formatting cleaned up slightly:         1. One cannot ask or get the developing world to stop using fossil fuels or make their energy costs higher while their people do not have their basic needs met 2. Even as shown in europe for the developed world stopping to use fossil fuels is not feasible 3. That any industrial revolution has a long transition period - parts of the world are still using wood 4. The energy industry is the only industry that has the experience and capability to make the transition in the time needed 5. Acknowledging the above rather than arguing for stopping fossil fuel now and villainizing the energy industry is needed to reach a global accord and coordination needed to make the transition away from fossil fuels and a natural resource based economy to a Renewable Energy and Materials Economy happen as quickly as possible       Oxy’s decision to pay $1.1 billion for a company with no revenue, and whose technology is still several years away from generating revenue, is bold. It would be unthinkably risky if it did not also offer some hope of extending Oxy's existing oil business. Oxy generates about $20B in profits each year, so even if there is a small chance this purchase of forestalling regulation or obsolescence, they should make the bet.       If nothing else, Oxy seems to be able to think rationally. Oxy has said they are planning to build 100 metago/yr-ish scale DAC facilities globally by 2035. I think the smart money right now is that they intend to follow through. This is obviously contingent on global markets for carbon credits, and Oxy can decide to reverse its investments later. But also, their ambitions are entirely achievable. See Peter’s (4) above in particular.       Is 100 megaton-scale DAC plants bad? I think that yes, the US’s climate credit policy gives some payout to people who don’t give a damn about climate. I also can’t think of an incentive plan that doesn’t have some perverse side effects, and yet we still incentivize and invest. It is very early in 2023 to be saying that we know that this particular set of incentives are bad, or good. Climate is a long game. It seems wrong to judge an investment by its outcome today.       Oxy, being the cold-blooded, rational capitalists they are, is making a bet that might not pay out, but will pay off well if it does. Maybe that last bit is the lesson here. Yes, there is risk to the climate movement that the bet in DAC will go totally sideways. But we are in a crisis. Our future livelihood is threatened. In that context, isn’t it worth taking risk?       I think ambivalence and caution are justified, but it’s worthwhile to put out an audible “yay!” here.           Seth                   -------       Seth Miller, Ph.D.   www.linkedin.com/in/sethmiller2   Check my blog at: perspicacity.xyz       On Aug 22, 2023, at 2:21 PM, Gregory Slater <ten...@gmail.com> wrote:           All,   Maybe I am just bad at searching the site, but I haven't found much discussion of the recently announced sale of David Keith's 'Carbon Engineering' to Occidental Petroleum for ~$1.1 billion. This announcement came only days after Biden announced hi intent to ask for ~$1.2 billion in aid for two CDR demo plants in Texas and Louisiana. I suppose I should be just grateful as hell that you can sell a pocket CDR test facility for a billion dollars, but I don't trust Occidental's motives in doing this. If selling a CDR company to big oil at this stage doesn't involve the specter of 'moral hazard', then there's no such thing as a moral hazard (which is constantly laid on SAI). Occidental is incentivized to put as much CO2 in the atmosphere as possible so they can make even more money pulling it all out. Gore even had a shocking quote from the Occidental CEO in his recent TED talk (who knows if it was a deepfake).       Did I miss the lively debate over this sale? Send me a link please.       Thank you,   Greg Slater           -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/a76df987-03cf-4dd6-a4e8-20abc9f92254n%40googlegroups.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/a76df987-03cf-4dd6-a4e8-20abc9f92254n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> .       -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/04B8E203-B172-4472-BE6E-CA4015959B54%40gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/04B8E203-B172-4472-BE6E-CA4015959B54%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> .

Seth Miller <setha...@gmail.com>: Aug 22 04:02PM -0600 > The statement “this makes everyone in the CDR community so uncomfortable that they aren’t celebrating…” is an overstatement.   This is fair!   I know that for me personally, I will piss off a lot of friends by cheering for Oxy and CE and the amoral wheels of capitalism. Still, this should be something of a watershed moment? I noticed the same silence that Greg did, and I think he’s right to poke the list to see how everyone is processing this.     -------   Seth Miller, Ph.D. www.linkedin.com/in/sethmiller2 Check my blog at: perspicacity.xyz

Anton Alferness <an...@paradigmclimate.com>: Aug 22 04:01PM -0700 I think the majority of people are not celebrating due to the yuck factor. Math and reality aside.

Dan Miller <d...@rodagroup.com>: Aug 22 07:28PM -0400 A few points:   1. I disagree that we need FF for a long time. We can ban ICE cars in 2030, FF electricity in 2035 and almost all FF energy in 2040. Any small amount of FF after that (and before!) would need to be offset with permanent CDR. Note that this phase out of FF will save society trillions of dollars because FF is the most expensive form of energy — by far — when all costs are included, and still more expensive even when climate damage is excluded. As we are learning today, the “external costs” of FF are real and must be paid in Maui and around the world. If you want to help the developing world, then give them renewable energy. FF are a curse for both environmental and financial reasons in the developing world, draining their resources to pay for a constant supply of FF.   2. This whole notion of a moral hazard for CDR assumes there will be no serious action on climate and we will ask FF companies to “pretty please” reduce the amount of product they supply. If we continue to choose to fail then we will, well, fail. But if we choose to take serious action, then it will not be up to FF companies to continue to produce deadly products by greenwashing with CDR. Perhaps, instead, they will turn into real CDR companies because they know for sure that they must ramp down production of FF.   3. I’m concerned that we — climate activists — continue to nibble around the edges of a plan that is doomed to fail. We need to face the fact that the world is taking essentially no serious climate action and try to change that. Subsidizing renewables is great but it does not stop climate change. Phasing out FF helps but there is very little discussion about even thinking about doing that! CDR and SRM are required to prevent >2ºC and other catastrophic tipping points, including a near-term AMOC shutdown, yet we are dilly dallying about those things. The fact that Biden can approve the Willow project and talk about providing shade and water to outdoor workers rather than than actually addressing climate change means there is no leadership on climate. António Guterres is great but no one listens to him. Instead, the head of the UAE oil company is running the upcoming COP! I think if the public understood that there is no one at the wheel, they might demand some level of real action. As climate damage increases, that day will eventually come, but we need to figure out how to accelerate the call for real climate action.   Dan       > The statement “this makes everyone in the CDR community so uncomfortable that they aren’t celebrating…” is an overstatement.   This is fair!   I know that for me personally, I will piss off a lot of friends by cheering for Oxy and CE and the amoral wheels of capitalism. Still, this should be something of a watershed moment? I noticed the same silence that Greg did, and I think he’s right to poke the list to see how everyone is processing this.     -------   Seth Miller, Ph.D. www.linkedin.com/in/sethmiller2 Check my blog at: perspicacity.xyz     -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com <mailto:CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/BA8350DE-A857-413D-9534-BEB7B1340414%40gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/BA8350DE-A857-413D-9534-BEB7B1340414%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net>: Aug 23 06:48AM Just to be clear on Oxy motives:https://www.eenews.net/articles/oil-companies-want-to-remove-carbon-from-the-air-using-taxpayer-dollars/ “ Occidental Petroleum Corp. leader Vicki Hollub has described DAC not as a climate solution but a way to continue producing petroleum.“We believe that our direct capture technology is going to be the technology that helps to preserve our industry over time,” she said at an oil and gas conference earlier this year. “This gives our industry a license to continue to operate for the 60, 70, 80 years that I think it’s going to be very much needed.” -as I posted on July 17, with lots of followup comments from others. You can sugarcoat this, but the deal is we here in the US can have DAC (and have it hugely subsidized by the US taxpayer) if we agree to prolong FF. All other CDR (that might be cheaper, faster, better, higher capacity in net consuming air CO2, but doesn't serve the FF industry) can find their own partons and votes in Congress.  The interesting exception to this is Climeworks, but even they couldn't resist the US DAC feeding trough: https://climeworks.com/news/u.s.-doe-selects-all-three-dac-hub-proposals-climeworks-participates-in It's again time for my annual posting of this little observation from the distant past: “It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.” ― Niccolò Machiavelli, 1513, The Prince  So, we and the planet are in for a "long experience" with excess CO2 before anything really changes?   Greg On Tuesday, August 22, 2023, 04:29:24 PM PDT, Dan Miller <d...@rodagroup.com> wrote: A few points: 1.  I disagree that we need FF for a long time.  We can ban ICE cars in 2030, FF electricity in 2035 and almost all FF energy in 2040. Any small amount of FF after that (and before!) would need to be offset with permanent CDR. Note that this phase out of FF will save society trillions of dollars because FF is the most expensive form of energy — by far — when all costs are included, and still more expensive even when climate damage is excluded.  As we are learning today, the “external costs” of FF are real and must be paid in Maui and around the world.  If you want to help the developing world, then give them renewable energy. FF are a curse for both environmental and financial reasons in the developing world, draining their resources to pay for a constant supply of FF. 2.  This whole notion of a moral hazard for CDR assumes there will be no serious action on climate and we will ask FF companies to “pretty please” reduce the amount of product they supply.  If we continue to choose to fail then we will, well, fail.  But if we choose to take serious action, then it will not be up to FF companies to continue to produce deadly products by greenwashing with CDR. Perhaps, instead, they will turn into real CDR companies because they know for sure that they must ramp down production of FF. 3.  I’m concerned that we — climate activists — continue to nibble around the edges of a plan that is doomed to fail.  We need to face the fact that the world is taking essentially no serious climate action and try to change that. Subsidizing renewables is great but it does not stop climate change. Phasing out FF helps but there is very little discussion about even thinking about doing that!  CDR and SRM are required to prevent >2ºC and other catastrophic tipping points, including a near-term AMOC shutdown, yet we are dilly dallying about those things.  The fact that Biden can approve the Willow project and talk about providing shade and water to outdoor workers rather than than actually addressing climate change means there is no leadership on climate.  António Guterres is great but no one listens to him. Instead, the head of the UAE oil company is running the upcoming COP!  I think if the public understood that there is no one at the wheel, they might demand some level of real action. As climate damage increases, that day will eventually come, but we need to figure out how to accelerate the call for real climate action. Dan   On Aug 22, 2023, at 6:02 PM, Seth Miller <setha...@gmail.com> wrote:   The statement “this makes everyone in the CDR community so uncomfortable that they aren’t celebrating…” is an overstatement.   This is fair!  I know that for me personally, I will piss off a lot of friends by cheering for Oxy and CE and the amoral wheels of capitalism. Still, this should be something of a watershed moment? I noticed the same silence that Greg did, and I think he’s right to poke the list to see how everyone is processing this.   ------- Seth Miller, Ph.D.www.linkedin.com/in/sethmiller2Check my blog at: perspicacity.xyz   On Aug 22, 2023, at 3:51 PM, Peter Flynn <pcf...@ualberta.ca> wrote:   The statement “this makes everyone in the CDR community so uncomfortable that they aren’t celebrating…” is an overstatement.   Fossil fuels have conveyed staggering benefits to humanity, with late recognition of a serious and terrible consequence not due to the use of energy but rather to the end byproduct of that energy. If the byproduct were to be fully dealt with, then at least one member of the CDR community, me, is comfortable with ongoing use. I can envision a future in which legacy emissions are captured and paid for by DAC primarily funded by those societies that historically created the emissions, and in which ongoing emissions are captured and paid for by DAC paid for by the user of the fuel. If a fossil fuel is economic in the future with full offset….ok by me. There is much suspicion of all energy producers, warranted in my opinion way more for some than others. We are moving to sufficiently accurate measurement and verification to know whether incremental emissions are truly offset. I think our future is better assured if we focus on results and not villains.   Peter   Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for EngineersDepartment of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of AlbertaEdmonton, Alberta, Canada1 928 451 4455pet...@ualberta.ca                   From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Seth Miller Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 3:33 PM To: Gregory Slater <ten...@gmail.com> Cc: Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: [CDR] Carbon Engineering and 'the moral hazard'   Greg, you didn’t miss anything.    I think the lessons here are that: - Oxy is 100% serious about going bit into DAC, using government funded carbon credits in order to extend their existing oil business - This makes everyone in the CDR community so uncomfortable that they aren’t celebrating this out loud     Peter Eisenberger wrestled with the uncomfortable part in another thread, which everyone should totally read, but I’ll quote below with formatting cleaned up slightly:     - One cannot ask or get the developing world to stop using fossil fuels or make their energy costs higher while their people do not have their basic needs met - Even as shown in europe for the developed world stopping to use fossil fuels is not feasible  - That any industrial revolution has a long transition period - parts of the world are still using wood  - The energy industry is the only industry that has the experience and capability to make the transition in the time needed  - Acknowledging the above rather than arguing for stopping fossil fuel now and villainizing the energy industry is needed to reach a global accord and coordination needed to make the transition away from fossil fuels and a natural resource based economy to a Renewable Energy and Materials Economy happen as quickly as possible         Oxy’s decision to pay $1.1 billion for a company with no revenue, and whose technology is still several years away from generating revenue, is bold. It would be unthinkably risky if it did not also offer some hope of extending Oxy's existing oil business. Oxy generates about $20B in profits each year, so even if there is a small chance this purchase of forestalling regulation or obsolescence, they should make the bet.   If nothing else, Oxy seems to be able to think rationally. Oxy has said they are planning to build 100 metago/yr-ish scale DAC facilities globally by 2035. I think the smart money right now is that they intend to follow through. This is obviously contingent on global markets for carbon credits, and Oxy can decide to reverse its investments later. But also, their ambitions are entirely achievable. See Peter’s (4) above in particular.   Is 100 megaton-scale DAC plants bad? I think that yes, the US’s climate credit policy gives some payout to people who don’t give a damn about climate. I also can’t think of an incentive plan that doesn’t have some perverse side effects, and yet we still incentivize and invest. It is very early in 2023 to be saying that we know that this particular set of incentives are bad, or good. Climate is a long game. It seems wrong to judge an investment by its outcome today.   Oxy, being the cold-blooded, rational capitalists they are, is making a bet that might not pay out, but will pay off well if it does. Maybe that last bit is the lesson here. Yes, there is risk to the climate movement that the bet in DAC will go totally sideways. But we are in a crisis. Our future livelihood is threatened. In that context, isn’t it worth taking risk?    I think ambivalence and caution are justified, but it’s worthwhile to put out an audible “yay!” here.        Seth               -------   Seth Miller, Ph.D.www.linkedin.com/in/sethmiller2Check my blog at: perspicacity.xyz     On Aug 22, 2023, at 2:21 PM, Gregory Slater <ten...@gmail.com> wrote:       All,Maybe I am just bad at searching the site, but I haven't found much discussion of the recently announced sale of David Keith's 'Carbon Engineering' to Occidental Petroleum for ~$1.1 billion.  This announcement came only days after Biden announced hi intent to ask for ~$1.2 billion in aid for two CDR demo plants in Texas and Louisiana.  I suppose I should be just grateful as hell that you can sell a pocket CDR test facility for a billion dollars, but I don't trust Occidental's motives in doing this.  If selling a CDR company to big oil at this stage doesn't involve the specter of 'moral hazard', then there's no such thing as a moral hazard (which is constantly laid on SAI).  Occidental is incentivized to put as much CO2 in the atmosphere as possible so they can make even more money pulling it all out.  Gore even had a shocking quote from the Occidental CEO in his recent TED talk (who knows if it was a deepfake).   Did I miss the lively debate over this sale?  Send me a link please.   Thank you,Greg Slater       --  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/a76df987-03cf-4dd6-a4e8-20abc9f92254n%40googlegroups.com.     --  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/04B8E203-B172-4472-BE6E-CA4015959B54%40gmail.com.   -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/BA8350DE-A857-413D-9534-BEB7B1340414%40gmail.com.       -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/B88FD074-58B5-40BF-862D-F9373F180474%40rodagroup.com.

David Hawkins <dahaw...@gmail.com>: Aug 23 08:42AM -0400  Greg, et al.,   OXY's CEO has indeed rationalized its investment in CDR as a device to prolong fossil fuel use. The US Congress has indeed to date declined to adopt a comprehensive, economy-wide mandatory GHG emission reduction regime (although the Clean Air Act, enacted in 1970, with relevant amendments as recent as 2022 provides EPA with substantial power to limit GHG emissions from new and existing sources, both stationary and mobile, and this authority has been several times confirmed by our Supreme Court, also as recent as 2022).   Does OXY's stated motive mean we should oppose the DAC project it is constructing? I don't think so. OXY's statement is not at all surprising. The primary audiences are those investors who are still backing Big Fossil and those who are investing in OXY in particular. OXY and other FF companies will no doubt continue to advocate for CDR that is larger than rational and claim that their investments are evidence of their “good faith.”   That's what they will argue but we who prioritize climate protection have overwhelmingly powerful and stronger arguments. CDR is not an alternative to radical reductions in FF and FF emissions. Those reductions must be the core of any strategy.   Even though CDR may play a modest role, cheaper, more energy efficient CDR is a plus. The DAC subsidies in the IRA are not the best policy but they are a better policy than no policy, if they speed learning for DAC.   To make a strategy that prioritizes emissions reductions a reality, in a democracy we need to assemble the votes to make it law. For some politicians, CDR may give them cover to move from opposition to support of the policies we need.   We will need to fight for terms that keep the focus on emissions reductions and replacement of FF with alternatives. That is a fight worth having and a fight we will win — later than it should have happened but the job now is to deploy all the tools that will help us win the fight more quickly. I believe the OXY project, regardless of the CEO's rationalization, can help create another useful tool in a complete program to limit climate disruption harms and help us assemble the votes we need to deliver that program.   David   Sent from my iPad   On Aug 23, 2023, at 2:50 AM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:      Just to be clear on Oxy motives:   https://www.eenews.net/articles/oil-companies-want-to-remove-carbon-from-the-air-using-taxpayer-dollars/   “ Occidental Petroleum Corp. leader Vicki Hollub has described DAC not as a climate solution but a way to continue producing petroleum.   “We believe that our direct capture technology is going to be the technology that helps to preserve our industry over time,” she said at an oil and gas conference earlier this year. “This gives our industry a license to continue to operate for the 60, 70, 80 years that I think it's going to be very much needed.”   -as I posted on July 17, with lots of followup comments from others. You can sugarcoat this, but the deal is we here in the US can have DAC (and have it hugely subsidized by the US taxpayer) if we agree to prolong FF. All other CDR (that might be cheaper, faster, better, higher capacity in net consuming air CO2, but doesn't serve the FF industry) can find their own partons and votes in Congress. The interesting exception to this is Climeworks, but even they couldn't resist the US DAC feeding trough: https://climeworks.com/news/us-doe-selects-all-three-dac-hub-proposals-climeworks-participates-in   It's again time for my annual posting of this little observation from the distant past:   “It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.” ― Niccolò Machiavelli, 1513, The Prince   So, we and the planet are in for a "long experience" with excess CO2 before anything really changes?   Greg   On Tuesday, August 22, 2023, 04:29:24 PM PDT, Dan Miller <d...@rodagroup.com> wrote:   A few points:   1. I disagree that we need FF for a long time. We can ban ICE cars in 2030, FF electricity in 2035 and almost all FF energy in 2040. Any small amount of FF after that (and before!) would need to be offset with permanent CDR. Note that this phase out of FF will save society trillions of dollars because FF is the most expensive form of energy — by far — when all costs are included, and still more expensive even when climate damage is excluded. As we are learning today, the “external costs” of FF are real and must be paid in Maui and around the world. If you want to help the developing world, then give them renewable energy. FF are a curse for both environmental and financial reasons in the developing world, draining their resources to pay for a constant supply of FF.   2. This whole notion of a moral hazard for CDR assumes there will be no serious action on climate and we will ask FF companies to “pretty please” reduce the amount of product they supply. If we continue to choose to fail then we will, well, fail. But if we choose to take serious action, then it will not be up to FF companies to continue to produce deadly products by greenwashing with CDR. Perhaps, instead, they will turn into real CDR companies because they know for sure that they must ramp down production of FF.   3. I'm concerned that we — climate activists — continue to nibble around the edges of a plan that is doomed to fail. We need to face the fact that the world is taking essentially no serious climate action and try to change that. Subsidizing renewables is great but it does not stop climate change. Phasing out FF helps but there is very little discussion about even thinking about doing that! CDR and SRM are required to prevent >2ºC and other catastrophic tipping points, including a near-term AMOC shutdown, yet we are dilly dallying about those things. The fact that Biden can approve the Willow project and talk about providing shade and water to outdoor workers rather than than actually addressing climate change means there is no leadership on climate. António Guterres is great but no one listens to him. Instead, the head of the UAE oil company is running the upcoming COP! I think if the public understood that there is no one at the wheel, they might demand some level of real action. As climate damage increases, that day will eventually come, but we need to figure out how to accelerate the call for real climate action.   Dan   On Aug 22, 2023, at 6:02 PM, Seth Miller <setha...@gmail.com> wrote:   The statement “this makes everyone in the CDR community so uncomfortable that they aren't celebrating…” is an overstatement.   This is fair!   I know that for me personally, I will piss off a lot of friends by cheering for Oxy and CE and the amoral wheels of capitalism. Still, this should be something of a watershed moment? I noticed the same silence that Greg did, and I think he's right to poke the list to see how everyone is processing this.   -------   Seth Miller, Ph.D.   www.linkedin.com/in/sethmiller2   Check my blog at: perspicacity.xyz   On Aug 22, 2023, at 3:51 PM, Peter Flynn <pcf...@ualberta.ca> wrote:   The statement “this makes everyone in the CDR community so uncomfortable that they aren't celebrating…” is an overstatement.   Fossil fuels have conveyed staggering benefits to humanity, with late recognition of a serious and terrible consequence not due to the use of energy but rather to the end byproduct of that energy. If the byproduct were to be fully dealt with, then at least one member of the CDR community, me, is comfortable with ongoing use. I can envision a future in which legacy emissions are captured and paid for by DAC primarily funded by those societies that historically created the emissions, and in which ongoing emissions are captured and paid for by DAC paid for by the user of the fuel. If a fossil fuel is economic in the future with full offset….ok by me. There is much suspicion of all energy producers, warranted in my opinion way more for some than others. We are moving to sufficiently accurate measurement and verification to know whether incremental emissions are truly offset. I think our future is better assured if we focus on results and not villains.   Peter   Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.   Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers   Department of Mechanical Engineering   University of Alberta   Edmonton, Alberta, Canada   1 928 451 4455   peter...@ualberta.ca   From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Seth Miller   Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 3:33 PM   To: Gregory Slater <ten...@gmail.com>   Cc: Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>   Subject: Re: [CDR] Carbon Engineering and 'the moral hazard'   Greg, you didn't miss anything.   I think the lessons here are that:   Oxy is 100% serious about going bit into DAC, using government funded carbon credits in order to extend their existing oil business   This makes everyone in the CDR community so uncomfortable that they aren't celebrating this out loud   Peter Eisenberger wrestled with the uncomfortable part in another thread, which everyone should totally read, but I'll quote below with formatting cleaned up slightly:   One cannot ask or get the developing world to stop using fossil fuels or make their energy costs higher while their people do not have their basic needs met   Even as shown in europe for the developed world stopping to use fossil fuels is not feasible   That any industrial revolution has a long transition period - parts of the world are still using wood   The energy industry is the only industry that has the experience and capability to make the transition in the time needed   Acknowledging the above rather than arguing for stopping fossil fuel now and villainizing the energy industry is needed to reach a global accord and coordination needed to make the transition away from fossil fuels and a natural resource based economy to a Renewable Energy and Materials Economy happen as quickly as possible   Oxy's decision to pay $1.1 billion for a company with no revenue, and whose technology is still several years away from generating revenue, is bold. It would be unthinkably risky if it did not also offer some hope of extending Oxy's existing oil business. Oxy generates about $20B in profits each year, so even if there is a small chance this purchase of forestalling regulation or obsolescence, they should make the bet.   If nothing else, Oxy seems to be able to think rationally. Oxy has said they are planning to build 100 metago/yr-ish scale DAC facilities globally by 2035. I think the smart money right now is that they intend to follow through. This is obviously contingent on global markets for carbon credits, and Oxy can decide to reverse its investments later. But also, their ambitions are entirely achievable. See Peter's (4) above in particular.   Is 100 megaton-scale DAC plants bad? I think that yes, the US's climate credit policy gives some payout to people who don't give a damn about climate. I also can't think of an incentive plan that doesn't have some perverse side effects, and yet we still incentivize and invest. It is very early in 2023 to be saying that we know that this particular set of incentives are bad, or good. Climate is a long game. It seems wrong to judge an investment by its outcome today.   Oxy, being the cold-blooded, rational capitalists they are, is making a bet that might not pay out, but will pay off well if it does. Maybe that last bit is the lesson here. Yes, there is risk to the climate movement that the bet in DAC will go totally sideways. But we are in a crisis. Our future livelihood is threatened. In that context, isn't it worth taking risk?   I think ambivalence and caution are justified, but it's worthwhile to put out an audible “yay!” here.   Seth   -------   Seth Miller, Ph.D.   www.linkedin.com/in/sethmiller2   Check my blog at: perspicacity.xyz   On Aug 22, 2023, at 2:21 PM, Gregory Slater <ten...@gmail.com> wrote:   All,   Maybe I am just bad at searching the site, but I haven't found much discussion of the recently announced sale of David Keith's 'Carbon Engineering' to Occidental Petroleum for ~$1.1 billion. This announcement came only days after Biden announced hi intent to ask for ~$1.2 billion in aid for two CDR demo plants in Texas and Louisiana. I suppose I should be just grateful as hell that you can sell a pocket CDR test facility for a billion dollars, but I don't trust Occidental's motives in doing this. If selling a CDR company to big oil at this stage doesn't involve the specter of 'moral hazard', then there's no such thing as a moral hazard (which is constantly laid on SAI). Occidental is incentivized to put as much CO2 in the atmosphere as possible so they can make even more money pulling it all out. Gore even had a shocking quote from the Occidental CEO in his recent TED talk (who knows if it was a deepfake).   Did I miss the lively debate over this sale? Send me a link please.   Thank you,   Greg Slater   --   You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.   To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.   To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/a76df987-03cf-4dd6-a4e8-20abc9f92254n%40googlegroups.com.   --   You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.   To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.   To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/04B8E203-B172-4472-BE6E-CA4015959B54%40gmail.com.   --   You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.   To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.   To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/BA8350DE-A857-413D-9534-BEB7B1340414%40gmail.com.   --   You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.   To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.   To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/B88FD074-58B5-40BF-862D-F9373F180474%40rodagroup.com.   --   You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.   To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.   To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/1525412807.2988003.1692773316418%40mail.yahoo.com.

Klaus Lackner <Klaus....@asu.edu>: Aug 23 02:31PM If you take a more optimistic perspective, Ms Hollub – the head of an oil company – has publicly admitted that the CO2 emissions from fossil fuels need to be canceled out by sequestration. Rather than belly-aching whether she does or does not want to continue fossil fuel use (of course she does), we should take the opening and demand that this cancellation must start today for all fossil fuels. Therefore, the deal should be you can have your sequestration, but you are now responsible for net zero. Every ton of carbon coming out of the ground, needs to be cancelled out by sequestration. Since it is unlikely that you have enough sequestration capacity today, the unbalanced part stays on your balance sheet just like any other debt and has to be paid off. Unless you or someone you pay for this service can give an ironclad guarantee that this future of a sequestration certificate is as good as a treasury bond and insured, you are no longer allowed to extract fossil fuels.   That deal is also good for the environment. If you could have it worldwide, it would guarantee that CO2 levels in the atmosphere will revert back to today’s levels once the mountain of carbon debt has been paid off. We are too late to just phase out fossil fuels. We can’t do it overnight, and I think it is a lot better to demand carbon neutrality than to give the industry a time schedule to phase out fossil fuels.   Will this approach lead to the perpetuation of fossil fuels? I doubt it. In this scenario OXY would suddenly have a very tidy business in CO2 sequestration selling it to all its fossil fuel partners. For many decades the demand for sequestration could not be met on the spot, and therefore piles up future demand. In a world that needs to draw down 100 ppm of CO2, you have 1500 Gt of CO2 demand built in. Alternatively, future obligations would globally pile up at about 40 Gt/yr, for years to come. OXY and its friends inside and outside the oil industry, would see this demand, and would have no reason to give you a break on sequestration. The cost of sequestration will not come down until the overhang is successfully removed. And that will take many decades. It won’t take OXY too long to figure out that sequestration is a better business than oil. No other industry has a mismatch between supply and demand as large as sequestration. Fossil fuels will have to pay a stiff price for sequestration, because the market will allow it. If renewable energy technologies can’t compete with that they don’t deserve any better. In my view, they can and will and will gradually force fossil fuel out.   In short, we should take the opportunity and agree with OXY that all carbon has to be cancelled out. We know how to do it, with all sorts of CDR. Then we add that the demand that fossil fuel producers must have the obligation to cancel out their carbon release immediately. Let’s focus on creating credible certificates of sequestrations that guarantee that carbon has been removed on climate relevant time scales and ironclad bonded futures on certificates of sequestration that companies can and must buy today.   Since, we can’t get the whole world behind this overnight, why don’t we start at home and require certificates of sequestration for all fossil fuel extraction, for all calcination processes and for all imports of oil, coal, gas, and fuel products. With that we could become carbon neutral and do our part to stop climate change.   Klaus       From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of David Hawkins <dahaw...@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 06:43 To: Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> Cc: Seth Miller <setha...@gmail.com>, Dan Miller <d...@rodagroup.com>, Peter Flynn <pcf...@ualberta.ca>, Gregory Slater <ten...@gmail.com>, Carbon Dioxide Removal <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: [CDR] Carbon Engineering and 'the moral hazard' Greg, et al., OXY’s CEO has indeed rationalized its investment in CDR as a device to prolong fossil fuel use. The US Congress has indeed to date declined to adopt a comprehensive, economy-wide mandatory GHG emission reduction regime (although the Clean Air Act, enacted in 1970, with relevant amendments as recent as 2022 provides EPA with substantial power to limit GHG emissions from new and existing sources, both stationary and mobile, and this authority has been several times confirmed by our Supreme Court, also as recent as 2022).   Does OXY’s stated motive mean we should oppose the DAC project it is constructing? I don’t think so. OXY’s statement is not at all surprising. The primary audiences are those investors who are still backing Big Fossil and those who are investing in OXY in particular. OXY and other FF companies will no doubt continue to advocate for CDR that is larger than rational and claim that their investments are evidence of their “good faith.” That’s what they will argue but we who prioritize climate protection have overwhelmingly powerful and stronger arguments. CDR is not an alternative to radical reductions in FF and FF emissions. Those reductions must be the core of any strategy.   Even though CDR may play a modest role, cheaper, more energy efficient CDR is a plus. The DAC subsidies in the IRA are not the best policy but they are a better policy than no policy, if they speed learning for DAC. To make a strategy that prioritizes emissions reductions a reality, in a democracy we need to assemble the votes to make it law. For some politicians, CDR may give them cover to move from opposition to support of the policies we need. We will need to fight for terms that keep the focus on emissions reductions and replacement of FF with alternatives. That is a fight worth having and a fight we will win — later than it should have happened but the job now is to deploy all the tools that will help us win the fight more quickly. I believe the OXY project, regardless of the CEO’s rationalization, can help create another useful tool in a complete program to limit climate disruption harms and help us assemble the votes we need to deliver that program. David   Sent from my iPad     On Aug 23, 2023, at 2:50 AM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:  Just to be clear on Oxy motives: https://www.eenews.net/articles/oil-companies-want-to-remove-carbon-from-the-air-using-taxpayer-dollars/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.eenews.net/articles/oil-companies-want-to-remove-carbon-from-the-air-using-taxpayer-dollars/__;!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!d0YqzCdFkXaCnOrYnq8YJl7cufhxjNFCeN2ODm47nXNDK0KNFf0hSJOPNkDWD7QAEVd0jd3KkuZzVhApODOzuQ$>   “ Occidental Petroleum Corp. leader Vicki Hollub has described DAC not as a climate solution but a way to continue producing petroleum<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.politico.com/news/2023/03/08/oil-industry-shift-climate-tech-00085853__;!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!d0YqzCdFkXaCnOrYnq8YJl7cufhxjNFCeN2ODm47nXNDK0KNFf0hSJOPNkDWD7QAEVd0jd3KkuZzVhB_V94x_w$>. “We believe that our direct capture technology is going to be the technology that helps to preserve our industry over time,” she said at an oil and gas conference earlier this year. “This gives our industry a license to continue to operate for the 60, 70, 80 years that I think it’s going to be very much needed.”     -as I posted on July 17, with lots of followup comments from others. You can sugarcoat this, but the deal is we here in the US can have DAC (and have it hugely subsidized by the US taxpayer) if we agree to prolong FF. All other CDR (that might be cheaper, faster, better, higher capacity in net consuming air CO2, but doesn't serve the FF industry) can find their own partons and votes in Congress. The interesting exception to this is Climeworks, but even they couldn't resist the US DAC feeding trough: https://climeworks.com/news/u.s.-doe-selects-all-three-dac-hub-proposals-climeworks-participates-in<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/climeworks.com/news/u.s.-doe-selects-all-three-dac-hub-proposals-climeworks-participates-in__;!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!d0YqzCdFkXaCnOrYnq8YJl7cufhxjNFCeN2ODm47nXNDK0KNFf0hSJOPNkDWD7QAEVd0jd3KkuZzVhCZXzGTvQ$>   It's again time for my annual posting of this little observation from the distant past: “It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.” ― Niccolò Machiavelli, 1513, The Prince<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1335445__;!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!d0YqzCdFkXaCnOrYnq8YJl7cufhxjNFCeN2ODm47nXNDK0KNFf0hSJOPNkDWD7QAEVd0jd3KkuZzVhD4E6p6Rw$> So, we and the planet are in for a "long experience" with excess CO2 before anything really changes?   Greg   On Tuesday, August 22, 2023, 04:29:24 PM PDT, Dan Miller <d...@rodagroup.com> wrote:     A few points:   1. I disagree that we need FF for a long time. We can ban ICE cars in 2030, FF electricity in 2035 and almost all FF energy in 2040. Any small amount of FF after that (and before!) would need to be offset with permanent CDR. Note that this phase out of FF will save society trillions of dollars because FF is the most expensive form of energy — by far — when all costs are included, and still more expensive even when climate damage is excluded. As we are learning today, the “external costs” of FF are real and must be paid in Maui and around the world. If you want to help the developing world, then give them renewable energy. FF are a curse for both environmental and financial reasons in the developing world, draining their resources to pay for a constant supply of FF.   2. This whole notion of a moral hazard for CDR assumes there will be no serious action on climate and we will ask FF companies to “pretty please” reduce the amount of product they supply. If we continue to choose to fail then we will, well, fail. But if we choose to take serious action, then it will not be up to FF companies to continue to produce deadly products by greenwashing with CDR. Perhaps, instead, they will turn into real CDR companies because they know for sure that they must ramp down production of FF.   3. I’m concerned that we — climate activists — continue to nibble around the edges of a plan that is doomed to fail. We need to face the fact that the world is taking essentially no serious climate action and try to change that. Subsidizing renewables is great but it does not stop climate change. Phasing out FF helps but there is very little discussion about even thinking about doing that! CDR and SRM are required to prevent >2ºC and other catastrophic tipping points, including a near-term AMOC shutdown, yet we are dilly dallying about those things. The fact that Biden can approve the Willow project and talk about providing shade and water to outdoor workers rather than than actually addressing climate change means there is no leadership on climate. António Guterres is great but no one listens to him. Instead, the head of the UAE oil company is running the upcoming COP! I think if the public understood that there is no one at the wheel, they might demand some level of real action. As climate damage increases, that day will eventually come, but we need to figure out how to accelerate the call for real climate action.   Dan     On Aug 22, 2023, at 6:02 PM, Seth Miller <setha...@gmail.com> wrote:   The statement “this makes everyone in the CDR community so uncomfortable that they aren’t celebrating…” is an overstatement.   This is fair!   I know that for me personally, I will piss off a lot of friends by cheering for Oxy and CE and the amoral wheels of capitalism. Still, this should be something of a watershed moment? I noticed the same silence that Greg did, and I think he’s right to poke the list to see how everyone is processing this.     -------   Seth Miller, Ph.D. www.linkedin.com/in/sethmiller2<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.linkedin.com/in/sethmiller2__;!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!d0YqzCdFkXaCnOrYnq8YJl7cufhxjNFCeN2ODm47nXNDK0KNFf0hSJOPNkDWD7QAEVd0jd3KkuZzVhC8LPg9AA$> Check my blog at: perspicacity.xyz     On Aug 22, 2023, at 3:51 PM, Peter Flynn <pcf...@ualberta.ca> wrote:   The statement “this makes everyone in the CDR community so uncomfortable that they aren’t celebrating…” is an overstatement.     Fossil fuels have conveyed staggering benefits to humanity, with late recognition of a serious and terrible consequence not due to the use of energy but rather to the end byproduct of that energy. If the byproduct were to be fully dealt with, then at least one member of the CDR community, me, is comfortable with ongoing use. I can envision a future in which legacy emissions are captured and paid for by DAC primarily funded by those societies that historically created the emissions, and in which ongoing emissions are captured and paid for by DAC paid for by the user of the fuel. If a fossil fuel is economic in the future with full offset….ok by me. There is much suspicion of all energy producers, warranted in my opinion way more for some than others. We are moving to sufficiently accurate measurement and verification to know whether incremental emissions are truly offset. I think our future is better assured if we focus on results and not villains.     Peter     Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D. Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta, Canada 1 928 451 4455 peter...@ualberta.ca<mailto:peter...@ualberta.ca>                     From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com<mailto:carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com<mailto:carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>> On Behalf Of Seth Miller Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 3:33 PM To: Gregory Slater <ten...@gmail.com<mailto:ten...@gmail.com>> Cc: Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com<mailto:CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>> Subject: Re: [CDR] Carbon Engineering and 'the moral hazard'     Greg, you didn’t miss anything.     I think the lessons here are that:   1. Oxy is 100% serious about going bit into DAC, using government funded carbon credits in order to extend their existing oil business 2. This makes everyone in the CDR community so uncomfortable that they aren’t celebrating this out loud     Peter Eisenberger wrestled with the uncomfortable part in another thread, which everyone should totally read, but I’ll quote below with formatting cleaned up slightly:       1. One cannot ask or get the developing world to stop using fossil fuels or make their energy costs higher while their people do not have their basic needs met 2. Even as shown in europe for the developed world stopping to use fossil fuels is not feasible 3. That any industrial revolution has a long transition period - parts of the world are still using wood 4. The energy industry is the only industry that has the experience and capability to make the transition in the time needed 5. Acknowledging the above rather than arguing for stopping fossil fuel now and villainizing the energy industry is needed to reach a global accord and coordination needed to make the transition away from fossil fuels and a natural resource based economy to a Renewable Energy and Materials Economy happen as quickly as possible     Oxy’s decision to pay $1.1 billion

Anton Alferness <an...@paradigmclimate.com>: Aug 23 07:49AM -0700 I think it is worth keeping in mind that there will come a point where there simply won't be any more reasons left to deny climate change is real and those clinging to their old paradigms will turn the corner. One way or another.

Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>: Aug 23 03:50PM +0100 Great idea, but ...   In effect what Klaus is proposing is the internalisation of the environmental costs associated with fossil fuel consumption that have hitherto been externalised - the mother of all market failures referred to by many commentators.   Internalising these costs will inescapably cause fossil fuel products to become more expensive.  The good news there is that this will favour the acceleration of the transition to renewables and nuclear.  The bad news is that logistically that it such a vast task globally that it will take decades before the current 80% reliance on fossil fuels is reduced to its irreducible minimum.  Further bad news is that the politicians that would have to mandate this policy globally are very unlikely to do so because their citizens will see this as tantamount to taxation.  Citizens don't like taxation and will not vote those politicians in next time round, or might revolt in totalitarian states where voting isn't available, or at least, the politicians would fear such reactions and would therefore be too timid to go down that route.   Eventually these environmental costs, both those emanating from current and future fossil fuels and those already incurred from past emissions, will have to be paid, one way or another.  The challenge that humanity faces is making that happen in an orderly and reasonably equitable manner.  If we don't find a way to do that in the relatively near future, nature will provide us with the solution.  As far as I'm aware, nature does not have a mechanism for addressing societal orderliness and equity.   The big imponderable is how much time have we got before nature takes the decisions out of our hands.  The answer to that question is subject to considerable uncertainty, however, given what's at stake, prudence might suggest we embrace that uncertainty by over-reacting.  The last 30 years or so of global climate change policymaking do not augur well in that regard.   Regards   Robert     On 23/08/2023 15:31, Klaus Lackner wrote:

"Sarnoff, Joshua" <JSAR...@depaul.edu>: Aug 23 02:53PM Perhaps you underestimate the power of delusional thinking and denial? Think about the “big lie” of the 2020 election. Admitting that it was false will now require lots of people to acknowledge that they were lying all along or being lied to and duped all along. Which undermines their belief in the positive association of their identities, not to mention the lack of safety. Consider the following analysis of climate denialism:   “ “Research suggests that people are attracted to these narratives when one or more psychological needs are threatened,” including the need to have clarity and certainty, the need to feel safe and in control, and the need to feel positive about groups you belong to, she says.”   Josh   From: <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Anton Alferness <an...@paradigmclimate.com> Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 10:49 AM To: Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> Cc: Seth Miller <setha...@gmail.com>, Dan Miller <d...@rodagroup.com>, Peter Flynn <pcf...@ualberta.ca>, Gregory Slater <ten...@gmail.com>, Carbon Dioxide Removal <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> Subject: [EXT] Re: [CDR] Carbon Engineering and 'the moral hazard'   I think it is worth keeping in mind that there will come a point where there simply won't be any more reasons left to deny climate change is real and those clinging to their old paradigms will turn the corner. One way or another.   On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 7:31 AM Klaus Lackner <Klaus....@asu.edu<mailto:Klaus....@asu.edu>> wrote: If you take a more optimistic perspective, Ms Hollub – the head of an oil company – has publicly admitted that the CO2 emissions from fossil fuels need to be canceled out by sequestration. Rather than belly-aching whether she does or does not want to continue fossil fuel use (of course she does), we should take the opening and demand that this cancellation must start today for all fossil fuels. Therefore, the deal should be you can have your sequestration, but you are now responsible for net zero. Every ton of carbon coming out of the ground, needs to be cancelled out by sequestration. Since it is unlikely that you have enough sequestration capacity today, the unbalanced part stays on your balance sheet just like any other debt and has to be paid off. Unless you or someone you pay for this service can give an ironclad guarantee that this future of a sequestration certificate is as good as a treasury bond and insured, you are no longer allowed to extract fossil fuels.   That deal is also good for the environment. If you could have it worldwide, it would guarantee that CO2 levels in the atmosphere will revert back to today’s levels once the mountain of carbon debt has been paid off. We are too late to just phase out fossil fuels. We can’t do it overnight, and I think it is a lot better to demand carbon neutrality than to give the industry a time schedule to phase out fossil fuels.   Will this approach lead to the perpetuation of fossil fuels? I doubt it. In this scenario OXY would suddenly have a very tidy business in CO2 sequestration selling it to all its fossil fuel partners. For many decades the demand for sequestration could not be met on the spot, and therefore piles up future demand. In a world that needs to draw down 100 ppm of CO2, you have 1500 Gt of CO2 demand built in. Alternatively, future obligations would globally pile up at about 40 Gt/yr, for years to come. OXY and its friends inside and outside the oil industry, would see this demand, and would have no reason to give you a break on sequestration. The cost of sequestration will not come down until the overhang is successfully removed. And that will take many decades. It won’t take OXY too long to figure out that sequestration is a better business than oil. No other industry has a mismatch between supply and demand as large as sequestration. Fossil fuels will have to pay a stiff price for sequestration, because the market will allow it. If renewable energy technologies can’t compete with that they don’t deserve any better. In my view, they can and will and will gradually force fossil fuel out.   In short, we should take the opportunity and agree with OXY that all carbon has to be cancelled out. We know how to do it, with all sorts of CDR. Then we add that the demand that fossil fuel producers must have the obligation to cancel out their carbon release immediately. Let’s focus on creating credible certificates of sequestrations that guarantee that carbon has been removed on climate relevant time scales and ironclad bonded futures on certificates of sequestration that companies can and must buy today.   Since, we can’t get the whole world behind this overnight, why don’t we start at home and require certificates of sequestration for all fossil fuel extraction, for all calcination processes and for all imports of oil, coal, gas, and fuel products. With that we could become carbon neutral and do our part to stop climate change.   Klaus       From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com<mailto:carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com<mailto:carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>> on behalf of David Hawkins <dahaw...@gmail.com<mailto:dahaw...@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 06:43 To: Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net<mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net>> Cc: Seth Miller <setha...@gmail.com<mailto:setha...@gmail.com>>, Dan Miller <d...@rodagroup.com<mailto:d...@rodagroup.com>>, Peter Flynn <pcf...@ualberta.ca<mailto:pcf...@ualberta.ca>>, Gregory Slater <ten...@gmail.com<mailto:ten...@gmail.com>>, Carbon Dioxide Removal <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com<mailto:carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>> Subject: Re: [CDR] Carbon Engineering and 'the moral hazard' Greg, et al., OXY’s CEO has indeed rationalized its investment in CDR as a device to prolong fossil fuel use. The US Congress has indeed to date declined to adopt a comprehensive, economy-wide mandatory GHG emission reduction regime (although the Clean Air Act, enacted in 1970, with relevant amendments as recent as 2022 provides EPA with substantial power to limit GHG emissions from new and existing sources, both stationary and mobile, and this authority has been several times confirmed by our Supreme Court, also as recent as 2022).   Does OXY’s stated motive mean we should oppose the DAC project it is constructing? I don’t think so. OXY’s statement is not at all surprising. The primary audiences are those investors who are still backing Big Fossil and those who are investing in OXY in particular. OXY and other FF companies will no doubt continue to advocate for CDR that is larger than rational and claim that their investments are evidence of their “good faith.” That’s what they will argue but we who prioritize climate protection have overwhelmingly powerful and stronger arguments. CDR is not an alternative to radical reductions in FF and FF emissions. Those reductions must be the core of any strategy.   Even though CDR may play a modest role, cheaper, more energy efficient CDR is a plus. The DAC subsidies in the IRA are not the best policy but they are a better policy than no policy, if they speed learning for DAC. To make a strategy that prioritizes emissions reductions a reality, in a democracy we need to assemble the votes to make it law. For some politicians, CDR may give them cover to move from opposition to support of the policies we need. We will need to fight for terms that keep the focus on emissions reductions and replacement of FF with alternatives. That is a fight worth having and a fight we will win — later than it should have happened but the job now is to deploy all the tools that will help us win the fight more quickly. I believe the OXY project, regardless of the CEO’s rationalization, can help create another useful tool in a complete program to limit climate disruption harms and help us assemble the votes we need to deliver that program. David   Sent from my iPad   On Aug 23, 2023, at 2:50 AM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net<mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net>> wrote: Just to be clear on Oxy motives: https://www.eenews.net/articles/oil-companies-want-to-remove-carbon-from-the-air-using-taxpayer-dollars/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.eenews.net/articles/oil-companies-want-to-remove-carbon-from-the-air-using-taxpayer-dollars/__;!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!d0YqzCdFkXaCnOrYnq8YJl7cufhxjNFCeN2ODm47nXNDK0KNFf0hSJOPNkDWD7QAEVd0jd3KkuZzVhApODOzuQ$>   “ Occidental Petroleum Corp. leader Vicki Hollub has described DAC not as a climate solution but a way to continue producing petroleum<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.politico.com/news/2023/03/08/oil-industry-shift-climate-tech-00085853__;!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!d0YqzCdFkXaCnOrYnq8YJl7cufhxjNFCeN2ODm47nXNDK0KNFf0hSJOPNkDWD7QAEVd0jd3KkuZzVhB_V94x_w$>. “We believe that our direct capture technology is going to be the technology that helps to preserve our industry over time,” she said at an oil and gas conference earlier this year. “This gives our industry a license to continue to operate for the 60, 70, 80 years that I think it’s going to be very much needed.”   -as I posted on July 17, with lots of followup comments from others. You can sugarcoat this, but the deal is we here in the US can have DAC (and have it hugely subsidized by the US taxpayer) if we agree to prolong FF. All other CDR (that might be cheaper, faster, better, higher capacity in net consuming air CO2, but doesn't serve the FF industry) can find their own partons and votes in Congress. The interesting exception to this is Climeworks, but even they couldn't resist the US DAC feeding trough: https://climeworks.com/news/u.s.-doe-selects-all-three-dac-hub-proposals-climeworks-participates-in<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/climeworks.com/news/u.s.-doe-selects-all-three-dac-hub-proposals-climeworks-participates-in__;!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!d0YqzCdFkXaCnOrYnq8YJl7cufhxjNFCeN2ODm47nXNDK0KNFf0hSJOPNkDWD7QAEVd0jd3KkuZzVhCZXzGTvQ$>   It's again time for my annual posting of this little observation from the distant past: “It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.” ― Niccolò Machiavelli, 1513, The Prince<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1335445__;!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!d0YqzCdFkXaCnOrYnq8YJl7cufhxjNFCeN2ODm47nXNDK0KNFf0hSJOPNkDWD7QAEVd0jd3KkuZzVhD4E6p6Rw$> So, we and the planet are in for a "long experience" with excess CO2 before anything really changes?   Greg   On Tuesday, August 22, 2023, 04:29:24 PM PDT, Dan Miller <d...@rodagroup.com<mailto:d...@rodagroup.com>> wrote:     A few points:   1. I disagree that we need FF for a long time. We can ban ICE cars in 2030, FF electricity in 2035 and almost all FF energy in 2040. Any small amount of FF after that (and before!) would need to be offset with permanent CDR. Note that this phase out of FF will save society trillions of dollars because FF is the most expensive form of energy — by far — when all costs are included, and still more expensive even when climate damage is excluded. As we are learning today, the “external costs” of FF are real and must be paid in Maui and around the world. If you want to help the developing world, then give them renewable energy. FF are a curse for both environmental and financial reasons in the developing world, draining their resources to pay for a constant supply of FF.   2. This whole notion of a moral hazard for CDR assumes there will be no serious action on climate and we will ask FF companies to “pretty please” reduce the amount of product they supply. If we continue to choose to fail then we will, well, fail. But if we choose to take serious action, then it will not be up to FF companies to continue to produce deadly products by greenwashing with CDR. Perhaps, instead, they will turn into real CDR companies because they know for sure that they must ramp down production of FF.   3. I’m concerned that we — climate activists — continue to nibble around the edges of a plan that is doomed to fail. We need to face the fact that the world is taking essentially no serious climate action and try to change that. Subsidizing renewables is great but it does not stop climate change. Phasing out FF helps but there is very little discussion about even thinking about doing that! CDR and SRM are required to prevent >2ºC and other catastrophic tipping points, including a near-term AMOC shutdown, yet we are dilly dallying about those things. The fact that Biden can approve the Willow project and talk about providing shade and water to outdoor workers rather than than actually addressing climate change means there is no leadership on climate. António Guterres is great but no one listens to him. Instead, the head of the UAE oil company is running the upcoming COP! I think if the public understood that there is no one at the wheel, they might demand some level of real action. As climate damage increases, that day will eventually come, but we need to figure out how to accelerate the call for real climate action.   Dan     On Aug 22, 2023, at 6:02 PM, Seth Miller <setha...@gmail.com<mailto:setha...@gmail.com>> wrote:   The statement “this makes everyone in the CDR community so uncomfortable that they aren’t celebrating…” is an overstatement.   This is fair!   I know that for me personally, I will piss off a lot of friends by cheering for Oxy and CE and the amoral wheels of capitalism. Still, this should be something of a watershed moment? I noticed the same silence that Greg did, and I think he’s right to poke the list to see how everyone is processing this.     -------   Seth Miller, Ph.D. www.linkedin.com/in/sethmiller2<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.linkedin.com/in/sethmiller2__;!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!d0YqzCdFkXaCnOrYnq8YJl7cufhxjNFCeN2ODm47nXNDK0KNFf0hSJOPNkDWD7QAEVd0jd3KkuZzVhC8LPg9AA$> Check my blog at: perspicacity.xyz<http://perspicacity.xyz/>   On Aug 22, 2023, at 3:51 PM, Peter Flynn <pcf...@ualberta.ca<mailto:pcf...@ualberta.ca>> wrote:   The statement “this makes everyone in the CDR community so uncomfortable that they aren’t celebrating…” is an overstatement.     Fossil fuels have conveyed staggering benefits to humanity, with late recognition of a serious and terrible consequence not due to the use of energy but rather to the end byproduct of that energy. If the byproduct were to be fully dealt with, then at least one member of the CDR community, me, is comfortable with ongoing use. I can envision a future in which legacy emissions are captured and paid for by DAC primarily funded by those societies that historically created the emissions, and in which ongoing emissions are captured and paid for by DAC paid for by the user of the fuel. If a fossil fuel is economic in the future with full offset….ok by me. There is much suspicion of all energy producers, warranted in my opinion way more for some than others. We are moving to sufficiently accurate measurement and verification to know whether incremental emissions are truly offset. I think our future is better assured if we focus on results and not villains.     Peter     Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D. Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta,

Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>: Aug 23 02:53PM Governments spent more than a trillion dollars last year subsidizing fossil fuels:   https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/23/g20-poured-more-than-1tn-on-fossil-fuel-subsidies-despite-cop26-pledges-report   We call for ALL these perverse subsidies to be immediately redirected towards testing all feasible options for stabilizing climate at safe levels.   Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD President, Global Coral Reef Alliance Chief Scientist, Blue Regeneration SL President, Biorock Technology Inc. Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK 37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139 gor...@globalcoral.org www.globalcoral.org Skype: tomgoreau Tel: (1) 617-864-4226 (leave message)   Books: Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392   Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734   Geotherapy: Regenerating ecosystem services to reverse climate change   No one can change the past, everybody can change the future   It’s much later than we think, especially if we don’t think   Those with their heads in the sand will see the light when global warming and sea level rise wash the beach away   “When you run to the rocks, the rocks will be melting, when you run to the sea, the sea will be boiling”, Peter Tosh, Jamaica’s greatest song writer             From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of David Hawkins <dahaw...@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 8:43 AM To: Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> Cc: Seth Miller <setha...@gmail.com>, Dan Miller <d...@rodagroup.com>, Peter Flynn <pcf...@ualberta.ca>, Gregory Slater <ten...@gmail.com>, Carbon Dioxide Removal <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: [CDR] Carbon Engineering and 'the moral hazard' Greg, et al., OXY’s CEO has indeed rationalized its investment in CDR as a device to prolong fossil fuel use. The US Congress has indeed to date declined to adopt a comprehensive, economy-wide mandatory GHG emission reduction regime (although the Clean Air Act, enacted in 1970, with relevant amendments as recent as 2022 provides EPA with substantial power to limit GHG emissions from new and existing sources, both stationary and mobile, and this authority has been several times confirmed by our Supreme Court, also as recent as 2022).   Does OXY’s stated motive mean we should oppose the DAC project it is constructing? I don’t think so. OXY’s statement is not at all surprising. The primary audiences are those investors who are still backing Big Fossil and those who are investing in OXY in particular. OXY and other FF companies will no doubt continue to advocate for CDR that is larger than rational and claim that their investments are evidence of their “good faith.” That’s what they will argue but we who prioritize climate protection have overwhelmingly powerful and stronger arguments. CDR is not an alternative to radical reductions in FF and FF emissions. Those reductions must be the core of any strategy.   Even though CDR may play a modest role, cheaper, more energy efficient CDR is a plus. The DAC subsidies in the IRA are not the best policy but they are a better policy than no policy, if they speed learning for DAC. To make a strategy that prioritizes emissions reductions a reality, in a democracy we need to assemble the votes to make it law. For some politicians, CDR may give them cover to move from opposition to support of the policies we need. We will need to fight for terms that keep the focus on emissions reductions and replacement of FF with alternatives. That is a fight worth having and a fight we will win — later than it should have happened but the job now is to deploy all the tools that will help us win the fight more quickly. I believe the OXY project, regardless of the CEO’s rationalization, can help create another useful tool in a complete program to limit climate disruption harms and help us assemble the votes we need to deliver that program. David   Sent from my iPad     On Aug 23, 2023, at 2:50 AM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:  Just to be clear on Oxy motives: https://www.eenews.net/articles/oil-companies-want-to-remove-carbon-from-the-air-using-taxpayer-dollars/   “ Occidental Petroleum Corp. leader Vicki Hollub has described DAC not as a climate solution but a way to continue producing petroleum<https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/08/oil-industry-shift-climate-tech-00085853>. “We believe that our direct capture technology is going to be the technology that helps to preserve our industry over time,” she said at an oil and gas conference earlier this year. “This gives our industry a license to continue to operate for the 60, 70, 80 years that I think it’s going to be very much needed.”     -as I posted on July 17, with lots of followup comments from others. You can sugarcoat this, but the deal is we here in the US can have DAC (and have it hugely subsidized by the US taxpayer) if we agree to prolong FF. All other CDR (that might be cheaper, faster, better, higher capacity in net consuming air CO2, but doesn't serve the FF industry) can find their own partons and votes in Congress. The interesting exception to this is Climeworks, but even they couldn't resist the US DAC feeding trough: https://climeworks.com/news/u.s.-doe-selects-all-three-dac-hub-proposals-climeworks-participates-in   It's again time for my annual posting of this little observation from the distant past: “It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.” ― Niccolò Machiavelli, 1513, The Prince<https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1335445> So, we and the planet are in for a "long experience" with excess CO2 before anything really changes?   Greg   On Tuesday, August 22, 2023, 04:29:24 PM PDT, Dan Miller <d...@rodagroup.com> wrote:     A few points:   1. I disagree that we need FF for a long time. We can ban ICE cars in 2030, FF electricity in 2035 and almost all FF energy in 2040. Any small amount of FF after that (and before!) would need to be offset with permanent CDR. Note that this phase out of FF will save society trillions of dollars because FF is the most expensive form of energy — by far — when all costs are included, and still more expensive even when climate damage is excluded. As we are learning today, the “external costs” of FF are real and must be paid in Maui and around the world. If you want to help the developing world, then give them renewable energy. FF are a curse for both environmental and financial reasons in the developing world, draining their resources to pay for a constant supply of FF.   2. This whole notion of a moral hazard for CDR assumes there will be no serious action on climate and we will ask FF companies to “pretty please” reduce the amount of product they supply. If we continue to choose to fail then we will, well, fail. But if we choose to take serious action, then it will not be up to FF companies to continue to produce deadly products by greenwashing with CDR. Perhaps, instead, they will turn into real CDR companies because they know for sure that they must ramp down production of FF.   3. I’m concerned that we — climate activists — continue to nibble around the edges of a plan that is doomed to fail. We need to face the fact that the world is taking essentially no serious climate action and try to change that. Subsidizing renewables is great but it does not stop climate change. Phasing out FF helps but there is very little discussion about even thinking about doing that! CDR and SRM are required to prevent >2ºC and other catastrophic tipping points, including a near-term AMOC shutdown, yet we are dilly dallying about those things. The fact that Biden can approve the Willow project and talk about providing shade and water to outdoor workers rather than than actually addressing climate change means there is no leadership on climate. António Guterres is great but no one listens to him. Instead, the head of the UAE oil company is running the upcoming COP! I think if the public understood that there is no one at the wheel, they might demand some level of real action. As climate damage increases, that day will eventually come, but we need to figure out how to accelerate the call for real climate action.   Dan     On Aug 22, 2023, at 6:02 PM, Seth Miller <setha...@gmail.com> wrote:   The statement “this makes everyone in the CDR community so uncomfortable that they aren’t celebrating…” is an overstatement.   This is fair!   I know that for me personally, I will piss off a lot of friends by cheering for Oxy and CE and the amoral wheels of capitalism. Still, this should be something of a watershed moment? I noticed the same silence that Greg did, and I think he’s right to poke the list to see how everyone is processing this.     -------   Seth Miller, Ph.D. www.linkedin.com/in/sethmiller2 Check my blog at: perspicacity.xyz     On Aug 22, 2023, at 3:51 PM, Peter Flynn <pcf...@ualberta.ca> wrote:   The statement “this makes everyone in the CDR community so uncomfortable that they aren’t celebrating…” is an overstatement.     Fossil fuels have conveyed staggering benefits to humanity, with late recognition of a serious and terrible consequence not due to the use of energy but rather to the end byproduct of that energy. If the byproduct were to be fully dealt with, then at least one member of the CDR community, me, is comfortable with ongoing use. I can envision a future in which legacy emissions are captured and paid for by DAC primarily funded by those societies that historically created the emissions, and in which ongoing emissions are captured and paid for by DAC paid for by the user of the fuel. If a fossil fuel is economic in the future with full offset….ok by me. There is much suspicion of all energy producers, warranted in my opinion way more for some than others. We are moving to sufficiently accurate measurement and verification to know whether incremental emissions are truly offset. I think our future is better assured if we focus on results and not villains.     Peter     Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D. Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta, Canada 1 928 451 4455 peter...@ualberta.ca<mailto:peter...@ualberta.ca>                     From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com<mailto:carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com<mailto:carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>> On Behalf Of Seth Miller Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 3:33 PM To: Gregory Slater <ten...@gmail.com<mailto:ten...@gmail.com>> Cc: Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com<mailto:CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>> Subject: Re: [CDR] Carbon Engineering and 'the moral hazard'     Greg, you didn’t miss anything.     I think the lessons here are that:   1. Oxy is 100% serious about going bit into DAC, using government funded carbon credits in order to extend their existing oil business 2. This makes everyone in the CDR community so uncomfortable that they aren’t celebrating this out loud     Peter Eisenberger wrestled with the uncomfortable part in another thread, which everyone should totally read, but I’ll quote below with formatting cleaned up slightly:       1. One cannot ask or get the developing world to stop using fossil fuels or make their energy costs higher while their people do not have their basic needs met 2. Even as shown in europe for the developed world stopping to use fossil fuels is not feasible 3. That any industrial revolution has a long transition period - parts of the world are still using wood 4. The energy industry is the only industry that has the experience and capability to make the transition in the time needed 5. Acknowledging the above rather than arguing for stopping fossil fuel now and villainizing the energy industry is needed to reach a global accord and coordination needed to make the transition away from fossil fuels and a natural resource based economy to a Renewable Energy and Materials Economy happen as quickly as possible     Oxy’s decision to pay $1.1 billion for a company with no revenue, and whose technology is still several years away from generating revenue, is bold. It would be unthinkably risky if it did not also offer some hope of extending Oxy's existing oil business. Oxy generates about $20B in profits each year, so even if there is a small chance this purchase of forestalling regulation or obsolescence, they should make the bet.     If nothing else, Oxy seems to be able to think rationally. Oxy has said they are planning to build 100 metago/yr-ish scale DAC facilities globally by 2035. I think the smart money right now is that they intend to follow through. This is obviously contingent on global markets for carbon credits, and Oxy can decide to reverse its investments later. But also, their ambitions are entirely achievable. See Peter’s (4) above in particular.     Is 100 megaton-scale DAC plants bad? I think that yes, the US’s climate credit policy gives some payout to people who don’t give a damn about climate. I also can’t think of an incentive plan that doesn’t have some perverse side effects, and yet we still incentivize and invest. It is very early in 2023 to be saying that we know that this particular set of incentives are bad, or good. Climate is a long game. It seems wrong to judge an investment by its outcome today.     Oxy, being the cold-blooded, rational capitalists they are, is making a bet that might not pay out, but will pay off well if it does. Maybe that last bit is the lesson here. Yes, there is risk to the climate movement that the bet in DAC will go totally sideways. But we are in a crisis. Our future livelihood is threatened. In that context, isn’t it worth taking risk?     I think ambivalence and caution are justified, but it’s worthwhile to put out an audible “yay!” here.         Seth                 -------     Seth Miller, Ph.D. www.linkedin.com/in/sethmiller2<http://www.linkedin.com/in/sethmiller2> Check my blog at: perspicacity.xyz<http://perspicacity.xyz/>   On Aug 22, 2023, at 2:21 PM, Gregory Slater <ten...@gmail.com<mailto:ten...@gmail.com>> wrote:         All, Maybe I am just bad at searching the site, but I haven't found much discussion of the recently announced sale of David Keith's 'Carbon Engineering' to Occidental Petroleum for ~$1.1 billion. This announcement came only days after Biden announced hi intent to ask for ~$1.2 billion in aid for two CDR demo plants in Texas and Louisiana. I suppose I should be just grateful as hell that you can sell a pocket CDR test facility for a billion dollars, but I don't trust Occidental's motives in doing this. If selling a CDR company to big oil at this stage doesn't involve the specter of 'moral hazard', then there's no such thing as a moral hazard (which is constantly laid on SAI). Occidental is incentivized to put as much CO2 in the atmosphere as possible so they can make even more money pulling it all out. Gore even had a

Back to top

Improved net carbon budgets in the US Midwest through direct measured impacts of enhanced weathering

Geoengineering News <geoengine...@gmail.com>: Aug 22 11:40PM +0500 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.16903   *Authors* Ilsa B. Kantola <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/authored-by/Kantola/Ilsa+B.>, Elena Blanc-Betes <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/authored-by/Blanc%E2%80%90Betes/Elena>, Michael D. Masters <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/authored-by/Masters/Michael+D.> , Elliot Chang <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/authored-by/Chang/Elliot>, Alison Marklein <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/authored-by/Marklein/Alison>, Caitlin E. Moore <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/authored-by/Moore/Caitlin+E.>, Adam von Haden <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/authored-by/Haden/Adam>, Carl J. Bernacchi <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/authored-by/Bernacchi/Carl+J.>, Adam Wolf <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/authored-by/Wolf/Adam>, Dimitar Z. Epihov <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/authored-by/Epihov/Dimitar+Z.>, David J. Beerling <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/authored-by/Beerling/David+J.> , Evan H. DeLucia <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/authored-by/DeLucia/Evan+H.> First published: *17 August 2023* https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16903 Abstract   *Abstract*   Terrestrial enhanced weathering (EW) through the application of Mg- or Ca-rich rock dust to soil is a negative emission technology with the potential to address impacts of climate change. The effectiveness of EW was tested over 4 years by spreading ground basalt (50 t ha−1 year−1) on maize/soybean and miscanthus cropping systems in the Midwest US. The major elements of the carbon budget were quantified through measurements of eddy covariance, soil carbon flux, and biomass. The movement of Mg and Ca to deep soil, released by weathering, balanced by a corresponding alkalinity flux, was used to measure the drawdown of CO2, where the release of cations from basalt was measured as the ratio of rare earth elements to base cations in the applied rock dust and in the surface soil. Basalt application stimulated peak biomass and net primary production in both cropping systems and caused a small but significant stimulation of soil respiration. Net ecosystem carbon balance (NECB) was strongly negative for maize/soybean (−199 to −453 g C m−2 year−1) indicating this system was losing carbon to the atmosphere. Average EW (102 g C m−2 year−1) offset carbon loss in the maize/soybean by 23%–42%. NECB of miscanthus was positive (63–129 g C m−2 year−1), indicating carbon gain in the system, and EW greatly increased inorganic carbon storage by an additional 234 g C m−2 year−1. Our analysis indicates a co-deployment of a perennial biofuel crop (miscanthus) with EW leads to major wins—increased harvested yields of 29%–42% with additional carbon dioxide removal (CDR) of 8.6 t CO2 ha−1 year −1. EW applied to maize/soybean drives a CDR of 3.7 t CO2 ha−1 year−1, which partially offsets well-established carbon losses from soil from this crop rotation. EW applied in the US Midwest creates measurable improvements to the carbon budgets perennial bioenergy crops and conventional row crops.   *Source: WILEY Online Library*

Geoengineering News <geoengine...@gmail.com>: Aug 23 03:35PM +0500 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.16903   *Authors* Ilsa B. Kantola <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/authored-by/Kantola/Ilsa+B.>, Elena Blanc-Betes <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/authored-by/Blanc%E2%80%90Betes/Elena>, Michael D. Masters <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/authored-by/Masters/Michael+D.> , Elliot Chang <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/authored-by/Chang/Elliot>, Alison Marklein <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/authored-by/Marklein/Alison>, Caitlin E. Moore <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/authored-by/Moore/Caitlin+E.>, Adam von Haden <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/authored-by/Haden/Adam>, Carl J. Bernacchi <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/authored-by/Bernacchi/Carl+J.>, Adam Wolf <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/authored-by/Wolf/Adam>, Dimitar Z. Epihov <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/authored-by/Epihov/Dimitar+Z.>, David J. Beerling <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/authored-by/Beerling/David+J.> , Evan H. DeLucia <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/authored-by/DeLucia/Evan+H.> First published: *17 August 2023 *   https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16903   *Abstract*   Terrestrial enhanced weathering (EW) through the application of Mg- or Ca-rich rock dust to soil is a negative emission technology with the potential to address impacts of climate change. The effectiveness of EW was tested over 4 years by spreading ground basalt (50 t ha−1 year−1) on maize/soybean and miscanthus cropping systems in the Midwest US. The major elements of the carbon budget were quantified through measurements of eddy covariance, soil carbon flux, and biomass. The movement of Mg and Ca to deep soil, released by weathering, balanced by a corresponding alkalinity flux, was used to measure the drawdown of CO2, where the release of cations from basalt was measured as the ratio of rare earth elements to base cations in the applied rock dust and in the surface soil. Basalt application stimulated peak biomass and net primary production in both cropping systems and caused a small but significant stimulation of soil respiration. Net ecosystem carbon balance (NECB) was strongly negative for maize/soybean (−199 to −453 g C m−2 year−1) indicating this system was losing carbon to the atmosphere. Average EW (102 g C m−2 year−1) offset carbon loss in the maize/soybean by 23%–42%. NECB of miscanthus was positive (63–129 g C m−2 year−1), indicating carbon gain in the system, and EW greatly increased inorganic carbon storage by an additional 234 g C m−2 year−1. Our analysis indicates a co-deployment of a perennial biofuel crop (miscanthus) with EW leads to major wins—increased harvested yields of 29%–42% with additional carbon dioxide removal (CDR) of 8.6 t CO2 ha−1 year −1. EW applied to maize/soybean drives a CDR of 3.7 t CO2 ha−1 year−1, which partially offsets well-established carbon losses from soil from this crop rotation. EW applied in the US Midwest creates measurable improvements to the carbon budgets perennial bioenergy crops and conventional row crops.   *Source: WILEY ONLINE LIBRARY*

Back to top

Carbon dioxide reduction by photosynthesis undetectable even during phytoplankton blooms in two lakes

Bhaskar M V <bhaska...@gmail.com>: Aug 22 11:07PM -0700 Algae contribute to CO2 reduction only when they sink in Oceans and when they are consumed by Zooplankton and Fish. The Organic Carbon in the Zooplankton and Fish biomass is the Carbon that would be removed from the water. *G. semen* and *G. echinulata* are perhaps not consumed by Zooplankton and Fish, so their blooms would NOT contribute to CO2 reduction. Lakes would not be deep enough for algae to sink and store Carbon. Regards   Bhaskar

Back to top

Seaweed biogeochemistry: Global assessment of C:N and C:P ratios and implications for ocean afforestation

Geoengineering News <geoengine...@gmail.com>: Aug 23 04:26AM +0500 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jpy.13381   *Authors* Emily J. Sheppard <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/authored-by/Sheppard/Emily+J.>, Catriona L. Hurd <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/authored-by/Hurd/Catriona+L.>, Damon D. Britton <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/authored-by/Britton/Damon+D.>, Daniel C. Reed <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/authored-by/Reed/Daniel+C.>, Lennart T. Bach <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/authored-by/Bach/Lennart+T.> First published: *19 August 2023* https://doi.org/10.1111/jpy.13381 Editor: M. Roleda   *Abstract*   Algal carbon-to-nitrogen (C:N) and carbon-to-phosphorus (C:P) ratios are fundamental for understanding many oceanic biogeochemical processes, such as nutrient flux and climate regulation. We synthesized literature data (444 species, >400 locations) and collected original samples from Tasmania, Australia (51 species, 10 locations) to update the global ratios of seaweed carbon-to-nitrogen (C:N) and carbon-to-phosphorus (C:P). The updated global mean molar ratio for seaweed C:N is 20 (ranging from 6 to 123) and for C:P is 801 (ranging from 76 to 4102). The C:N and C:P ratios were significantly influenced by seawater inorganic nutrient concentrations and seasonality. Additionally, C:N ratios varied by phyla. Brown seaweeds (Ochrophyta, Phaeophyceae) had the highest mean C:N of 27.5 (range: 7.6–122.5), followed by green seaweeds (Chlorophyta) of 17.8 (6.2–54.3) and red seaweeds (Rhodophyta) of 14.8 (5.6–77.6). We used the updated C:N and C:P values to compare seaweed tissue stoichiometry with the most recently reported values for plankton community stoichiometry. Our results show that seaweeds have on average 2.8 and 4.0 times higher C:N and C:P than phytoplankton, indicating seaweeds can assimilate more carbon in their biomass for a given amount of nutrient resource. The stoichiometric comparison presented herein is central to the discourse on ocean afforestation (the deliberate replacement of phytoplankton with seaweeds to enhance the ocean biological carbon sink) by contributing to the understanding of the impact of nutrient reallocation from phytoplankton to seaweeds under large-scale seaweed cultivation.   *Source: Wiley Online Library*

Michael Hayes <electro...@gmail.com>: Aug 22 04:58PM -0700 Cultivation of any biomass on a CDR scale can and likely will use multiple forms of technology. The more confined that the cultivation is, as in using floating bioreactors, one likely will get better MRV numbers and fewer environmental considerations, and possibly larger profits.   Cultivation of seaweed of all types, even many land row crops, can likely be carried out in large marine-grade 'farms' that largely automate the biomass throughput.   To get up to CDR levels using the marine-based biotic path, high throughput cultivation technology will need to be a priority, just as it is with land crops.   On Tue, Aug 22, 2023, 4:27 PM Geoengineering News <

Back to top

20 point plan

Roger Arnold <silver...@gmail.com>: Aug 22 11:31AM -0700 The relationship is indirect, but it's definitely there. There's a strong thread of opposition to CDR -- much less SRM or anything that smacks of "geoengineering" -- within the climate activist community. It's the "emissions reduction is the One True Path" school of thought. Anything more than building more wind and solar and energy storage facilities is seen as an unnecessary diversion of resources. Michaux's work shows, rather conclusively in my opinion, that that view is untenable.   On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 6:28 AM Michael Hayes <electro...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dan Galpern <dan.g...@gmail.com>: Aug 22 11:59AM -0700 Hi Peter, Did you really mean, by your last full sentence, to cite the need for global cooperation on CDR as an ultimate reason to oppose limitations on fossil fuels? Such a position seems to me like moral-hazard on steroids, and right out of the big oil playbook, so I've been wondering. To get there it seems you may have equated energy production with fossil fuel production, and I'm sure you do not mean that. So, can you clarify? Thanks much, Dan     On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 2:08 AM Peter Eisenberger <

Gregory Slater <ten...@gmail.com>: Aug 22 01:23PM -0700 I'd like thank everyone who offered sources for this topic. I am trying to create a document of my own based on them. Thanks, Greg Slater   On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:52:00 PM UTC-7 Gregory Slater wrote:

Peter Eisenberger <peter.ei...@gmail.com>: Aug 22 01:24PM -0700 Hi Dan No of course not. If it was feasible to stop using fossil fuel energy today I would be all for it. My point was 1 One cannot ask or get the developing world to stop using fossil fuels or make their energy costs higher while their people do not have their basic needs met 2 Even as shown in europe for the developed world stopping to use fossil fuels is not feasible 3 That any industrial revolution has a long transition period - parts of the world are still using wood 4 the energy industry is the only industry that has the experience and capability to make the transition in the time needed 5 that acknowledging the above rather than arguing for stopping fossil fuel now and villainizing the energy industry is needed to reach a global accord and coordination needed to make the transition away from fossil fuels and a natural resource based economy to a Renewable Energy and Materials Economy happen as quickly as possible Hope that clarifies things Peter       -- CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This email message and all attachments contain confidential and privileged information that are for the sole use of the intended recipients, which if appropriate applies under the terms of the non-disclosure agreement between the parties.

Dan Miller <d...@rodagroup.com>: Aug 22 04:26PM -0400 Hi Peter:   I think it depends how serious we are at fighting climate change. Right now we aren’t serious so having solutions that can pay for themselves is helpful.   But if we get serious, then it is like fighting WW2 and it won’t require solutions that pay for themselves (do nuclear weapons pay for themselves?).   I do think solutions that pay for themselves now are very useful because it helps develop the technology that we will need to scale quickly when we finally get serious.   And, of course, attempts to limit FF production have and will be met with resistance. But fortunately, renewable energy is generally cheaper than FF now and will continue to drop in cost. So, again, if we get serious, we can do these things.   Of course, the fact that given what we know now and what we see now, and the world still isn't serious about climate action, doesn’t bode well for our future.   Dan   On Aug 20, 2023, at 5:08 AM, Peter Eisenberger <peter.ei...@gmail.com> wrote:   Hi Dan If the climate solution costs money it raises the issue of who pays which in turn delays adoption Regarding CO2 as a pollutant that costs money to remove is in my opinion the wrong framework for thinking how to address the climate threat. By having ambient CO2 provide the carbon and with hydrogen from water providing the carbon and hydrogen that is currently provided by fossil hydrocarbons. Using existing processes and infrastructure create a synthetic hydrocarbon economy with carbon neutral energy and carbon negative materials like carbon fiber and building materials *eg synthetic aggregate" . This provides a direct link economic growth and climate change protection and enhances the rate of adoption https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.14976 I agree all efforts should be made including notably emission reductions The great need for energy in the developing world to address the basic needs of their people means that any attempt to reduce energy production like preventing new fossil fuel infrastructure is and will be met with opposition which in turn prevents a global cooperation and coordination on CDR that is needed to fight the threat of climate change. Peter     -- CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This email message and all attachments contain confidential and privileged information that are for the sole use of the intended recipients, which if appropriate applies under the terms of the non-disclosure agreement between the parties.

"Jim Baird" <jim....@gwmitigation.com>: Aug 22 03:22PM -0700 The winning driver for climate mitigation is lowest cost, which can Thermodynamic Geoengineering can provide.     From: Dan Miller Sent: August 22, 2023 1:27 PM To: Peter Eisenberger <peter.ei...@gmail.com> Cc: Michael Hayes <electro...@gmail.com>; Chris Van Arsdale <cvana...@google.com>; Gregory Slater <ten...@gmail.com>; Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>; Jim Baird <jim....@gwmitigation.com> Subject: Re: [CDR] Summary of current price per kg of DAC and other CDR technologies....     Hi Peter:     I think it depends how serious we are at fighting climate change. Right now we aren’t serious so having solutions that can pay for themselves is helpful.     But if we get serious, then it is like fighting WW2 and it won’t require solutions that pay for themselves (do nuclear weapons pay for themselves?).     I do think solutions that pay for themselves now are very useful because it helps develop the technology that we will need to scale quickly when we finally get serious.     And, of course, attempts to limit FF production have and will be met with resistance. But fortunately, renewable energy is generally cheaper than FF now and will continue to drop in cost. So, again, if we get serious, we can do these things.     Of course, the fact that given what we know now and what we see now, and the world still isn't serious about climate action, doesn’t bode well for our future.     Dan     On Aug 20, 2023, at 5:08 AM, Peter Eisenberger <peter.ei...@gmail.com <mailto:peter.ei...@gmail.com> > wrote:     Hi Dan   If the climate solution costs money it raises the issue of who pays which in turn delays adoption   Regarding CO2 as a pollutant that costs money to remove is in my opinion the wrong framework for thinking how to address   the climate threat. By having ambient CO2 provide the carbon and with hydrogen from water providing   the carbon and hydrogen that is currently provided by fossil hydrocarbons. Using existing processes   and infrastructure create a synthetic hydrocarbon economy with carbon neutral energy and carbon negative materials   like carbon fiber and building materials *eg synthetic aggregate" . This provides   a direct link economic growth and climate change protection and enhances the rate of adoption   https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.14976   I agree all efforts should be made including notably emission reductions   The great need for energy in the developing world to address the basic needs of their people means   that any attempt to reduce energy production like preventing new fossil fuel infrastructure is and   will be met with opposition which in turn prevents a global cooperation and coordination on CDR that   is needed to fight the threat of climate change.   Peter     On Sat, Aug 19, 2023 at 10:51 PM Jim Baird <jim....@gwmitigation.com <mailto:jim....@gwmitigation.com> > wrote:   “$2T/year for -40 Gt/y”     Per the attached for one and a half times this the warming, energy and carbon problems would be eliminated.         From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <mailto:carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Dan Miller Sent: August 19, 2023 7:56 PM To: Michael Hayes <electro...@gmail.com <mailto:electro...@gmail.com> > Cc: Peter Eisenberger <peter.ei...@gmail.com <mailto:peter.ei...@gmail.com> >; Chris Van Arsdale <cvana...@google.com <mailto:cvana...@google.com> >; Gregory Slater <ten...@gmail.com <mailto:ten...@gmail.com> >; Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com <mailto:CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com> > Subject: Re: [CDR] Summary of current price per kg of DAC and other CDR technologies....     I would suggest that current numbers for cost of CDR are not meaningful. These are numbers for kiloton per year capture vs. the needed gigaton per year (1,000,000X more). Learning curves should bring the cost down by about an order of magnitude or more.     And I don’t understand the discussion of “cost effectiveness” for CDR. It’s bit like asking about the cost effectiveness of heart bypass surgery. Without it, you’re dead. How do you calculate the ROI?     The bottom line is that the cost of doing CDR at scale (I estimate it’s $2T/year for -40 Gt/y) is much less than the cost of *not* doing it. So, from that point of view, it’s very cost effective.     And, no, there is not a tradeoff between CDR and emissions reduction using renewable energy. An emissions reduction only approach leads to >2ºC warming which is catastrophic. So CDR is required on top of the most aggressive emissions reduction we can muster. Emissions reduction only also leads to an AMOC collapse around mid-century, so SRM is also required.     I notice that a lot of the negative discussion around CDR recently assumes we will not have any serious policy to fight climate change. That is why they think a dollar spent on CDR is a dollar not spent on RE. They also worry that CDR will give FF companies more social license to continue their business. It’s like we are asking FF companies to "pretty please" reduce their business. This makes sense since we currently have no serious policy in place to fight climate change and we continue to choose to fail, as Kevin Anderson puts it. Well, I have news for everyone. If we continue to choose to fail, we will fail!     But we can choose to succeed and put serious policies in place to quickly phase out fossil fuels, scale up CDR, and get going with SRM. Notice that I didn’t mention RE there. If we phase out FF, then RE will take its place. No need to subsidize it (which results in more RE than we need).     Once again, here is my suggested 20-point policy plan to fight climate change, in case we choose to succeed.     Dan     <image001.jpg>       On Aug 19, 2023, at 8:48 PM, Michael Hayes <electro...@gmail.com <mailto:electro...@gmail.com> > wrote:     Peter, et al.,     The NOAA mCDR team is already doing a deep evaluation of mCDR methods. If anything, they are creating a template for non mCDR methods to follow.     Best regards     On Sat, Aug 19, 2023, 5:11 PM Peter Eisenberger <peter.ei...@gmail.com <mailto:peter.ei...@gmail.com> > wrote:   Thanks for the reference. I looked at the DACCS evaluation and noted   the comment that it lacked any co benefits that would enhance its adoption.   I wrote a paper in 2012 that showed that DACUS ( eg use and storage ) would provide such co benefits   turning it from a cost to a profitable equitable and sustainable approach to climate change protection   https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.14976   I do applaud their efforts because it is exactly what is needed so as to focus our efforts on the most   promising approaches - time is a critical factor and we need a coordinated effort to scale the most promising   approaches. We need to come together and carry out an independent assessment with the best experts of the many approaches   and provide the policy makers with a technical assessment that can guide their policy efforts.         On Sat, Aug 19, 2023 at 3:08 PM 'Chris Van Arsdale' via Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com <mailto:CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com> > wrote:   https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/acacb3/pdf     ... not that everyone agrees with those numbers.     On Sat, Aug 19, 2023 at 2:52 PM Gregory Slater <ten...@gmail.com <mailto:ten...@gmail.com> > wrote:     Hello All,     Could someone point me to a good 'spreadsheet-like' summary of the current price per kg of CO2 removal for the various CDR technologies/methods? Also interested in a 'time per kg' (removal timescale, including the time it takes to build out the infrastructure) for all CDR technologies.     Thanks for any help,   Greg Slater           -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com <mailto:CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com> . To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/1f05b81a-4a2c-4914-a824-ba1f7764aff3n%40googlegroups.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/1f05b81a-4a2c-4914-a824-ba1f7764aff3n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> .     -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com <mailto:CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com> . To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CADzNRbYAprTv658Q3hHEa5jTdbzA_s3F7YKoHjhSZ6OH-f1haQ%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CADzNRbYAprTv658Q3hHEa5jTdbzA_s3F7YKoHjhSZ6OH-f1haQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> .           --   CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This email message and all attachments contain confidential and privileged information that are for the sole use of the intended recipients, which if appropriate applies under the terms of the non-disclosure agreement between the parties.     -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com <mailto:CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com> . To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CANx_M7Sx0Opks%2BZp5huBEui5RRkSMr1mB4pXdNc%3D8MBqBjMuug%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CANx_M7Sx0Opks%2BZp5huBEui5RRkSMr1mB4pXdNc%3D8MBqBjMuug%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> .     -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com <mailto:CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com> . To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CABjtO1cv%3DA-%2BdjNWPVJ2emJNiDdkvp9nna3StLhE%2BhwUe8FKzQ%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CABjtO1cv%3DA-%2BdjNWPVJ2emJNiDdkvp9nna3StLhE%2BhwUe8FKzQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> .     -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com <mailto:CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com> . To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/B9A3C784-80BB-432C-BF68-4C66512FA892%40rodagroup.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/B9A3C784-80BB-432C-BF68-4C66512FA892%40rodagroup.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> .           --   CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This email message and all attachments contain confidential and privileged information that are for the sole use of the intended recipients, which if appropriate applies under the terms of the non-disclosure agreement between the parties.

Back to top

Ebb Carbon at Sequim facility, Dept of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)

Andrew Marcus <andrew...@gmail.com>: Aug 22 09:43AM -0700 Achim,   You make many fair points regarding a list of unanswered questions. One notion that I resist, however, is that piggybacking "caps the future capacity extension," especially in a general sense. First, if we look at our history, transformative technologies have often relied on piggybacking, with catalytic converters being a notable example. There would be no Tesla or hybrids with the automobile industry. Second, if we look specifically at OAE, most companies are operating at around 0.00001% of the capacity. No one is being limited by the cap today. Third, I am in the business of wastewater treatment-based CDR (full disclosure). Much like automobiles, the need for wastewater treatment scales in proportion to population. With sanitation rated the greatest medical advance in 150 years by the British Medical Journal, being part of a growing industry where modern society cannot function without ought to be seen as a strength, not a weakness.   Because this was a recurring reviewer comment for our CDR proposals, I wanted to offer a retort.   Andrew

Back to top

You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.