Some scientists say CO2 removal is simply a distraction from the urgency of the climate crisis and an excuse to continue burning fossil fuels.
Bingo~
I’m surprised you haven’t been downvoted to oblivion.
CO2 removal/credit trading was a scam from the start - so obviously that it was discussed in print at the time.
Yes, let’s further acidify the oceans. No way that could go wrong
The article says that “some companies are experimenting with alkaline rocks”. So it’s the opposite.
I think the alkaline rocks create a way to absorb the carbonic acid that comes from CO2 diluted in water.
That’s correct. And my point is that they aren’t “further acidifying” the ocean, like Icalasari said; they’re doing the exact opposite.
I’ll use the opportunity for an info dump. You potentially know what I’m going to say, but it’s for the sake of users in general.
Carbon dioxide dissolution in water can be simplified through the equation
CO₂(g) + 2H₂O(l) ⇌ H₃O⁺(aq) + HCO₃⁻(aq)
gaseous carbon dioxide + water generates (→) hydronium (“acidity”) + bicarbonate, and vice versa (←).It’s a reversible reaction, as anyone opening a soda can knows (wait a bit and the gas GTFO and you’re left with flat soda). However, you can “force” a reversible reaction to go more into one or another direction, by messing with the amounts of substances in each side of the equation:
- if you add more of the junk to one side, the reaction will go more towards the other side - to consume the stuff that you added
- if you remove junk from one side, the reaction will go more towards that side - to regenerate the junk that you removed
So it’s like reactions go against whatever change you do. This is known as Le Chatelier’s principle. In a simplified way, “if you change shit the reaction tries to revert your change”.
Now. The main concern is CO₂ in the atmosphere. We don’t want it. To consume it through this reaction, we could remove acidity from the ocean. That’s actually doable by dumping some alkaline substances there, because of another equilibrium:
H₃O⁺(aq) + OH⁻(aq) ⇌ 2H₂O(l)
hydronium (“acidity”) + hydroxide (“alkalinity”) generates water, and vice versa.So by adding alkaline substances to the sea you could remove hydronium, and by removing hydronium you’re encouraging the sea to gorge on even more carbon dioxide.
It sounds like an extremely bad idea though. Just like the two reactions that I mentioned interact with each other, there’s a bazillion other reactions doing the same. Specially when we’re talking about acidity/alkalinity (pH), it’s hard to find something where pH does not influence the outcome!
So the consequences of “let’s dump alkaline substances in the sea! What could go wrong?” might be extremely messy, and not so obvious from a first moment. Instead we’re simply better off by avoiding to add even more CO₂ to the atmosphere.
Ah, so I had it the opposite way. Thanks for the explanation
It’s not the ocean’s fault. How about we force oil company CEOs to absorb more CO2.
I’m not a ceo but I’m doing my part by drinking as much pellegrino as possible.
Pellegrino is owned by Nestlé :c
Dumb as shit. “We have an issue, but instead of fixing it, let’s just make nature TAKE IT. TAKE IT AND LIKE IT”
I just picture scientists leaning down on the bech going "pspspsps’
Maybe we could stop fucking dredging the ocean? I feel like most people missed this statistic… but ocean dredging is likely around the equivalent C02 output of the entire aviation industry.
There are some interesting ideas in there that I hadn’t heard of. Interesting article
deleted by creator
It’s easier to convince the S.E.A. then the C.E.O.
We just need a giant box of baking soda. It will absorb anything.
But i thought the earth created humans because it wanted more CO2 and plastic /s
Yeah. We keep trying to dump stuff in the ocean, it always comes back and bites us in the ass.
Iron seeding has significant downsides
Isn’t this a path to creating more methane clathrates?
