could remove something of the order of about 3 billion tons of carbon dioxide by mid century. and with carbon capture and storage which, if done right, could also be a net carbon removal technology, that might contribute something like 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide removal by mid century. and then direct air capture, something like three, may be as high as five, billion tons by mid century. now, if you add all of those up, you are talking about 10 billion tons of co2 removal by mid century. that might seem like a lot but comparing it to our current emissions, which are 35 billion tons of co2, it only represents about a third of the solution. and so that means to deal with the other two thirds, we need to get much more energy efficient and if, on top of that, carbon removal technologies can help us along the way, then that s great, but let s not pin our hopes
technology and nature suck up the c02 mess we currently make? if we look at planting trees or forestation than the feeling was that i could remove something of the order of about 3 billion tons of carbon dioxide by mid century. with carbon capture and storage, if done right, could also be a net carbon removal technology. it may contribute something like 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide removal by mid century. then direct air removal by mid century. then directair capture, removal by mid century. then direct air capture, something like three, may be as high as 5 million tons by mid century. now if you add all of those up you are talking about 10 million tons of c02 removal by mid century. it may seem like a lot but comparing it to our current emissions which are 35 billion tons of c02, it only represents about one third of the solution and so it means to deal with the other two thirds we need to get much more energy efficient and if on top of that, carbon removal technologies can help u
c02 from reaching the atmosphere. last year, that was three quarters of1 million tons. 0ther three quarters of1 million tons. other projects are even more efficient. so couldn t we just ramp this up a notch or two and solve climate crisis for good? well, in theory, it would need tens of thousands more of these, and today we have fewer than 30 worldwide and assault of the same number again promised for the next 20 years. and it seems ccs, at least so far, is not a big winner. least so far, is not a big winner- least so far, is not a big winner. , , , . winner. despite concerted efforts over winner. despite concerted efforts over the winner. despite concerted efforts over the past - winner. despite concerted efforts over the past two l efforts over the past two decades, really, it has not taken off as a successful economically viable technology at commercial scale and that is because it is very costly, you cannot fit carbon capture to the exhaust pipes of cars, for example, the tech
then our material biodegrade into c02 in the water and biomass. into c02 in the water and biomass- into c02 in the water and biomass. , .. , , biomass. ingredients can be put throu~h biomass. ingredients can be put through existing biomass. ingredients can be put through existing moulding - through existing moulding machines. the material would struggle with housing hazardous chemicals though and its end of life is proving problematic. it end-of-life is proving problematic.- end-of-life is proving problematic. it can be mechanically - problematic. it can be mechanically or - problematic. it can be - mechanically or chemically recycled. the problem is that the volumes are so small that it doesn t make any sense that the current plastic recycling infrastructure collect and our material out. 50 infrastructure collect and our material out. material out. so for this to really work material out. so for this to really work it material out. so for this to really work it needs - materia