4 Comments
User's avatar
Kathleen McCroskey's avatar

No and no and no. Gore is wrong, CO2 is about 0.042% of atmosphere. Other studies have found that CO2 removal from oceans is 100x more efficient than direct-air. Laws of thermodynamics - of course it takes more energy to remove it. And all the energy to make the equipment. “Negative emissions” (CO2 removal) is required (says IPCC) even after actual emissions cease, to actually lower the level in the atmosphere. These wannabe direct air schemes do not even compensate for existing emissions, and certainly do not compensate for additional emissions from (the stupidity of) AI data centers. Selling offsets from CO2 capture is the ultimate environmental crime, it totally perverts the reasoning for the project in the first place.

Expand full comment
Walt Svirsky's avatar

Exactly, Kathleen. Trading in carbon credits has been a boondoggle from day 1.

Expand full comment
WattCarbon's avatar

Taking a gas furnace out of a house and putting in a heat pump reduces emissions by around 4 tons per year. At $1,000/ton you could pay to electrify houses with a three year payback. The rest of the 12 years of useful life would be free emission reductions. In the US, about 20,000 gas furnaces and water heaters are installed daily that will each burn for the next two decades. Amazing what we could do if we had as a goal to eliminate fossil fuel use, rather than prolong its life.

Expand full comment
Walt Svirsky's avatar

Thanks for throwing some light on these con artists, Chris. I can’t say I’m surprised.

Expand full comment