This is a disingenuous argument from environmental groups against researching climate solutions. Fossil fuel companies will use the potential of CO₂ removal (CDR) for greenwashing, so if scientists can't study the efficacy and potential side effects, greenwashing will continue.
All of your posts are balanced on a difficult line in between tearing down and boosting geoengineering, but this one fell over onto the boost side. Since environmental groups see that it is 99% greenwashing now, what else should they say? Spend limited research money to keep testing a sham?
I'm not boosting anything. We must research CO₂ removal methods to understand efficacy and potential side effects. I have always been crystal clear about this. This is about our responsibility to future generations.
rdcu.be/dbFbB
I understand what you've written in general. When environmental groups speak to the public, they have a limited window in which to communicate. Given that honest geoengineering can't really help until after decarbonization i.e. decades from now at best, "it's all greenwashing" is OK for now
No. They are actively trying to prevent scientists from obtaining permits to research the efficacy and potential side effects of marine CO₂ removal techniques.
As a retired scientist, I'm not opposed to research. But if I were to head a funding agency, research on CDR would be very low on my priority list. Given the scale of global C cycle, human efforts to remove CO2 would have marginal effect at best. Add in energy costs, and...?
