Current Events > Scientists find way to make mineral which can remove CO2 from atmosphere

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://phys.org/news/2018-08-scientists-mineral-co2-atmosphere.html

RIP global warming
---

Noice
---

If this can be developed to industrial scale

uh huh, the same glaring million dollar question that applies to every one of our existing technologies/theoretical plans for carbon capture

it's still lunacy at this point to be banking on any of them to do what we need to be done

Why not just send a bunch of trees into space?

Checkmate atheists
---

Omnislasher posted...

If this can be developed to industrial scale

uh huh, the same glaring million dollar question that applies to every one of our existing technologies/theoretical plans for carbon capture

it's still lunacy at this point to be banking on any of them to do what we need to be done

This and other solutions will be developed to industrial scale. It's simply a matter of time. I have zero doubt that it will happen. Just like adoption rates of solar and other renewables have greatly exceeded expectations from a decade ago, we'll see rapid development of these solutions. Especially if the government gives grants to the best contenders in the space to incentivize profit-seeking.
---

Omnislasher posted...

If this can be developed to industrial scale

uh huh, the same glaring million dollar question that applies to every one of our existing technologies/theoretical plans for carbon capture

it's still lunacy at this point to be banking on any of them to do what we need to be done

I'm still hopeful because I think scientists are much more likely to solve the problem than politicians are. And I don't want to think that the world is fucked just yet.
---

we are replacing trees with rocks

does anyone see a problem with this? No? No? Carry on.

inb4jesuschristmarie
---

pretty badass. hopefully it can be adopted on a large scale like Omnislasher said.

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Especially if the government gives grants to the best contenders in the space to incentivize profit-seeking.

isn't that a form of socialism?
---

If it can be done at an effective scale, it could prove to be a fantastic temporary solution to the issue. But, as always, it's important to keep expectations in check while research continues.

There are already start-ups that are investing money into carbon recapture & storage products/services, so I'm optimistic.

@Giant_Aspirin

Is government investing in something or making grants available socialism?
---

The Climeworks CO2 Capture Plants is available to buy today.
---

Let's actually invent and have this mineral actually doing what you're claiming it can do before we defund all of our alternative energy groups.... Not the other way around.
---

Hey proudclad, what happened to pretending climate change is fake?
---

Well, if this works, then it's going to solve a shitload of problems.

Not just for global warming, but also for public health. Breathing all that CO2 in the cities isn't good.
---

Cosmic_Diabetic posted...

Let's actually invent and have this mineral actually doing what you're claiming it can do before we defund all of our alternative energy groups.... Not the other way around.

where did I say anything about defunding alternative energy groups?

P4wn4g3 posted...

Hey proudclad, what happened to pretending climate change is fake?

Stop making up shit, I don't say climate change is fake. Don't be ass-ravaged just because you got spanked in that other topic lmao
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Giant_Aspirin

Is government investing in something or making grants available socialism?

taking taxpayer money (money from the people) and spending it on things that benefit everyone via research sounds socialist to me. what are your thoughts?

edit: grants/etc are basically taking taxes and spending them to benefit "the greater good".
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Giant_Aspirin

Is government investing in something or making grants available socialism?

taking taxpayer money (money from the people) and spending it on things that benefit everyone via research sounds socialist to me. what are your thoughts?

edit: grants/etc are basically taking taxes and spending them to benefit "the greater good".

TIL - SpaceX is socialism
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Cosmic_Diabetic posted...

Let's actually invent and have this mineral actually doing what you're claiming it can do before we defund all of our alternative energy groups.... Not the other way around.

where did I say anything about defunding alternative energy groups?

Oh don't worry you don't have to advocate for Trump about it. He's already on top of it. By slashing their funding https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/31/trump-again-seeks-to-slash-funding-for-clean-energy-in-2019-budget.html By over 72%.....
---

that sounds great if it can be realised, but i'm curious if there's any other kind of pollution in the production and/or disposal processes first.
---

So the big question, should these scientists be allowed royalties and be able to get rich from something that will save the planet and likely be forced on developing nations?
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

So the big question, should these scientists be allowed royalties and be able to get rich from something that will save the planet and likely be forced on developing nations?

Let's actually focus on being able to save the planet first. You're getting way ahead of yourself. And if this is accomplished by a federal agency then no they don't get anything other than their yearly pay raise.
---

Cosmic_Diabetic posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Cosmic_Diabetic posted...

Let's actually invent and have this mineral actually doing what you're claiming it can do before we defund all of our alternative energy groups.... Not the other way around.

where did I say anything about defunding alternative energy groups?

Oh don't worry you don't have to advocate for Trump about it. He's already on top of it. By slashing their funding https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/31/trump-again-seeks-to-slash-funding-for-clean-energy-in-2019-budget.html By over 72%.....

and hopefully Congress blocks the orange turd again

ROBANN_88 posted...

that sounds great if it can be realised, but i'm curious if there's any other kind of pollution in the production and/or disposal processes first.

almost definitely, but what matters is if the net carbon recapture outweighs the pollution, because then we can use it temporarily as a way to eliminate global warming as a threat while we move towards more nuclear reactors / solar panels / etc

darkphoenix181 posted...

So the big question, should these scientists be allowed royalties and be able to get rich from something that will save the planet and likely be forced on developing nations?

i mean that's way too simplistic a question. these scientists will probably be picked up by various companies looking to leverage their expertise in industry. and they'll get paid for it. and in the case of those who prefer academia, don't they make money from publishing? and don't they get paid for their work in the lab by the grants they win?
---

Cosmic_Diabetic posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

So the big question, should these scientists be allowed royalties and be able to get rich from something that will save the planet and likely be forced on developing nations?

Let's actually focus on being able to save the planet first. You're getting way ahead of yourself. And if this is accomplished by a federal agency then no they don't get anything other than their yearly pay raise.

and nice fat pensions that non-state employees don't get
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

and in the case of those who prefer academia, don't they make money from publishing?

lol
---

This is just pointless. Realistically the mineral won't stop global warming and even if it does, certain companies will try to block it because it'd run them out of business.

ROBANN_88 posted...

that sounds great if it can be realised, but i'm curious if there's any other kind of pollution in the production and/or disposal processes first.

There's also the question of storage for this CO2-filled mineral. Still, those questions can be answered later. I'd much rather the scientists focus on the process itself at the moment.

This and other solutions will be developed to industrial scale.

uh. citation needed?

It's simply a matter of time.

ah. too bad we have exactly none of that left.

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Cosmic_Diabetic posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

So the big question, should these scientists be allowed royalties and be able to get rich from something that will save the planet and likely be forced on developing nations?

Let's actually focus on being able to save the planet first. You're getting way ahead of yourself. And if this is accomplished by a federal agency then no they don't get anything other than their yearly pay raise.

and nice fat pensions that non-state employees don't get

Hey private companies are free to deny you any form of pension or post job care packages.

Isn't capitalism just dandy?!
---

This doesn't need to be another capitalism vs socialism topic, people.

COVxy posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

and in the case of those who prefer academia, don't they make money from publishing?

lol

---

Meh. No reason to get excited about stuff like this until it's actually proven and implemented.

Too much click bait, pop-science and science-ism lately.
---

A far more interesting proposal:
https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-may-have-discovered-how-to-make-alcohol-out-of-thin-air

Or, you know, just legalize weed.
Hemp excels at converting carbon dioxide into useful plant fiber, and not all of it is burned again for amusement.

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Giant_Aspirin posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Giant_Aspirin

Is government investing in something or making grants available socialism?

taking taxpayer money (money from the people) and spending it on things that benefit everyone via research sounds socialist to me. what are your thoughts?

edit: grants/etc are basically taking taxes and spending them to benefit "the greater good".

TIL - SpaceX is socialism

thanks for that riveting response that thoroughly addressed the questions i presented to you.
---

Remember when hydrogen fuel cells were the future?

I guess everyone suddenly realized we would have to split water to get all that hydrogen. *trombone downer*
---

I like the idea of large scale marijuana production but that'd never make a dent.

Nuclear + renewable + less desforestation + reversing desertification
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

I like the idea of large scale marijuana production but that'd never make a dent.

The only real solution is to go back in time to about 1750, and prevent the industrial revolution somehow.

Removing CO2 is not a good thing... since our CO2 levels have rose, our forests are growing more and more.
---

Omnislasher posted...

This and other solutions will be developed to industrial scale.

uh. citation needed?

It's simply a matter of time.

ah. too bad we have exactly none of that left.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7E1v24Dllk" data-time="

Also I recommend the book Enlightenment Now and would pay for your copy if you promise to read it.
---

MaverickXeo posted...

Removing CO2 is not a good thing... since our CO2 levels have rose, our forests are growing more and more.

*risen
and this is an insane person, everyone

Why is planting trees not seen as viable?
---

Omnislasher posted...

MaverickXeo posted...

Removing CO2 is not a good thing... since our CO2 levels have rose, our forests are growing more and more.

*risen
and this is an insane person, everyone

It's plausible, but to really get the most out rising CO2 and approach a useful equilibrium, you'd need a plant that grows much faster than trees, multiplies quicker, and is just plain better at photosynthesis.

...like, say, hemp.

darkjedilink posted...

Why is planting trees not seen as viable?

it's definitely effective, just not as effective as we'd need it to be.

more trees, more seawood, carbon sequestration, and more renewables all need to be implemented at the same time. along with reduction in emissions which would be a side effect of going all out on renewables.
---

you seriously referring me to al gore? i read and listen to actual scientists. familiar with many of them. you must be joking.
and pinker is garbage.

Omnislasher is a perfect example of what it looks like when someone doesn't want climate change to be fixed because it would upend their ulterior political motivations if it was no longer a threat.
---

darkjedilink posted...

Why is planting trees not seen as viable?

Trees are big and slow-growing.

I think there is also a question of arable land and amount of water
---

Let's laugh at the scientists who know nothing about climate change and are wasting time with this
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

I think there is also a question of arable land and amount of water

That's not a problem. We used to need way more land and water to grow crops than now. But because of advancements in GMOs, irrigation, and agricultural techniques we've substantially increased yield while reducing land & water requirements.

Enlightenment Now by Steven Pinker goes into specific details. It's an impressive achievement. Before, we'd have needed a land mass the size of America and all of Russia to produce as much food as we produce now. Yet we substantially reduced the amount of land required.
---

The important thing to note, as has been mentioned, is that we won't rely on a single solution. Rather, we use multiple options to contribute to the overall goal. That's where success will lie.

Omnislasher posted...

MaverickXeo posted...

Removing CO2 is not a good thing... since our CO2 levels have rose, our forests are growing more and more.

*risen
and this is an insane person, everyone

Tons of articles and research papers show this.
---