Nature has equipped the earth with many giant “sponges” or carbon sinks, which can help man fight climate change. These natural sponges, as well as man-made ones, can use carbon, effectively removing it from the atmosphere.
But does this scientific act really involve it? And how much will it really take – and cost – to make that difference and slow down Climate change?
Sabina Fuss has been looking for answers for the last two years. Fuss, a Berlin-based economist, leads a research group at the Mercator Research Institute on Global Conscience and Climate Change and was part of the original intergovernmental panel on climate change set up by the United Nations to assess scientific risks and effects. global warming. Following the panel’s 2018 report and the goal of the new Paris Agreement to keep global warming at 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) or less, Fuss was tasked with finding that Carbon The elimination strategy was the most promising and possible.
Related: What is a carbon sink?
Deforestation and reforestation – reforestation, respectively – are known as natural carbon sinks. Most trees can isolate greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere Photosynthesis, A chemical reaction that uses the sun’s energy to convert carbon dioxide and water into sugar and oxygen. According to a 2019 study in the journal Science, Planting 1 trillion trees 22 Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, about 225 billion tons (205 billion metric tons) of carbon or about two-thirds of the carbon released into the atmosphere by humans can be stored.
Agricultural land management is another natural carbon removal approach that is relatively low risk and has already been tested, according to Jane Zelikova, terrestrial ecologist and chief scientist of Carbon 180, in the U.S. Carbon intake is enhanced by the profitable health and crop rotation photosynthesis that advocates for carbon removal strategies, and that carbon is eventually stored in the root tissues that decompose in the soil. The National Academy of Sciences Sciences found that carbon storage in the soil was sufficient to account for about 10% of U.S. annual net emissions – or about 2,636 million tons (572 million metric tons) CO2 – Low cost.
But nature-based carbon removal, such as deforestation and reforestation, may conflict with other policy goals, such as food production, Fuse said. Small, these strategies require a lot of land, often using land that is already in use.
They say a more technical approach to carbon removal is crucial, he says. With direct air capture and carbon storage, for example, a chemical process carries carbon dioxide out of the air and attaches it to filters. When the filter is heated, CO2 can be captured and then injected underground. There are currently 15 direct air capture plants worldwide International Energy Agency. There is also Bioenergy with carbon capture. With this method, plants and trees are grown, forming a carbon sink, and then biological substances are burned to produce heat or fuel called binary energy. During combustion, carbon emissions are captured and stored underground. Another carbon capture tactic involves mineralization; In this process, the rocks are coated with CA2 to enhance the surfaces available for chemical reaction and crystallization. After that, the mineralized CO2 is stored underground.
However, none of these techniques have been widely applied. They’re extremely ExpensiveWith an estimate of tes Ton 400 per ton No CO2 removed, and everyone still needs a lot of research and support before deploying. But the U.S. A good example of how a combination of carbon removal solutions can work together, Zelikova said: land management can be used in the agricultural Midwest; Basalt rocks in the Pacific Northwest are great for mineralization; He said oil fields in the southwest already have the right technical and skilled workers for underground carbon storage.
Related: Why does the earth rotate?
Ultimately, each country will have to put together its own unique portfolio of CO2 elimination strategies as no single intervention will succeed on its own. “It would be a tragedy if we raised any of them alone.” “It would use a lot of land or be prohibitively expensive.” Her research shows that deforestation and deforestation in the tropics will be the most productive, while the difference in solar radiation in northern latitudes with more albedo (more reflection of light in space) means that those countries will invest better fortunes in more technological interventions. , Such as carbon capture and biomass extraction.
The need to deploy these solutions is imminent. Fuse said the global carbon budget, the amount of CO2 humans, could exit just before global temperatures rise 2.7F (1.5C) above predetermined levels, is 300 gigatonnes of CO2.
“In recent years, we’ve dismantled 40 gigatonnes,” he said. In other words, there are only a few years left in that budget. Recent study in the journal Scientific reports Indicates that even a few years from now may be too late if we are to meet the target set in the Paris Agreement. Based on their climate model Dell, the authors predict that even if we completely stop emitting greenhouse gases, “global temperatures will remain C [5.4 F] Warm and sea level 3 m [10 feet] More than 2500 compared to 1850. “To counteract the effects of climate change, 33 gigatonnes of existing greenhouse vehicles should be removed this year and moved forward each year,” the researchers said.
The reality, however, is that these approaches are not ready and there is no consensus on how to pay for them. There is a consensus among scientists on the next step: we need to stop further emissions immediately. But, “because emissions are embedded in our daily lives and infrastructure,” Fuse said.[carbon] Comes forward to remove. “
Published on Original Living Science.
