Wired argues that while there have been announcements about the possibility of usable carbon removal technologies at an affordable cost they are being hyped to the point where we may not take any action to mitigate the damage we are doing.
Scientists have long speculated that so-called "negative emissions" technologies like CO2 removal could not only slow the accumulation of carbon in the air, but even reverse it. Before last week, though, all that speculation was, well, largely speculative; nobody had convincingly demonstrated how to pull off negative emissions at scale. Previous estimates had pegged the cost of sucking carbon from the skies, for instance, at $600 per ton—way too pricey to qualify as a viable cleanup solution. The findings from Carbon Engineering, which appear in the latest issue of the journal Joule, point the way toward a future in which negative emissions are not only technically possible but financially feasible.
So yeah—it's big, significant, encouraging news. But it's not all blue skies and rainbows.
|Nestle' Outbids Small Town on Use of Well|
|30% of Germany's Electricity is Green|
|“Previously unknown plastic contamination in the tap water of cities around the world.”|
|The State of Staten Island|
|"Climate change has moved from a distant threat to a present-day danger."|
|“A company headquartered in Toronto runs a successful affordable mobile phone service in the US.”|
|“Civilisation is a movement, and not a condition, a voyage and not a harbour.”|
|“Lighter, more affordable, personal rapid transit: self-driving bikes.”|
|Japanese Robot Serves Ice Cream From Inside a Vending Machine|
|Somebody Needs to Build a New Facebook Stat|
|CaptchaTweet: Write Tweets in Captcha Form|
|Bizarre Record Covers|
|Why, Typewriters Are Alive and Well, Thank you|
|The (Very Scary) People of Public Transit|
|How to Avoid Jury Duty|
|“Artificial intelligence can detect your sexuality and politics just by looking at your face.”|