Hiilidioksidin nappaaminen ilmasta

[Heikki Jokipii]

Tästä näkökulmasta:

Tekniset nielut ovat toistaiseksi kallis unelma

EU:n ilmastopaneelin mukaan BECCS:n käyttö kilpailee luonnon nielujen kanssa. Hiilen tekninen talteenotto vaatii laitoksilta myös paljon energiaa, jota niiden olisi tuotettava entistä enemmän lisää puuta polttamalla. BECCS:n laajamittaisen käyttöönoton riskinä onkin metsien hakkuiden jatkuminen kestämättömällä tasolla ja jopa hakkuiden lisääntyminen.

[Heikki Jokipii]

Tässä sitä sitten ollaankin. Hesarin pääkirjoitus:

Hallituksen lupaus piippujen tulppaamisesta lussahti

Ja hinta tuli siinäkin esille.


PS. 30.03.24. Kai Mykkäsen oli pakko reagoida:

EU:n ilmastotavoite edellyttää teknisiä nieluja

Helsingin Sanomien pääkirjoitus (28.3.) varoitti nojaamasta teknisiin nieluihin, vaikka pitikin niiden kehittämistä tarpeellisena. Teknisten nielujen läpimurto onkin yhtä epävarmaa kuin tuulivoimalla 15 vuotta sitten. Olivatko tuulivoimaan silloin panostaneet kuitenkaan väärällä asialla?

Minun välitön reaktioni: olivat! 

[Heikki Jokipii]

Saatavina videona ja transskriptiona:

Global Greening
The Greening Earth vs Enemies of Climate Truth

Earth benefits from increasing greening that reverberates through entire ecosystems! Rising CO2 and its fertilization effects makes ecosystems more robust and more resilient. Greening debunks claims by enemies of climate truth that rising Co2 is causing ecosystem collapse!

[Heikki Jokipii]

Hintaan tässäkin kiinnitetään huomiota:

$100 Billion per Year Needed for US Carbon Removal

Reippaan skeptiset loppukappaleet:

I used to wonder why the ancient Egyptians wasted so much money and effort building pyramids, when they could have used those resources to better the lives of their people.

I guess we all have the answer to that question now: Some ancient Egyptian claimed their computer model said it was necessary to spend vast resources on pyramid building, that the gods would be angry if they didn’t provide for their pharaohs in the afterlife. And for 1200 years, between 2700BC to 1500BC, nobody questioned the computer model prediction.

Let us hope the people of our society prove a little more adept at asking the right questions.

[Heikki Jokipii]

Yhteen aikaan levisi huhu — tai levitettiin huhua —  että lisääntynyt CO2- pitoisuus ei olisi hyväksi lopputuotteen ravintoarvoille.

Mutta miten asian laita on:

Nutritive Value of Plants Growing in Enhanced CO2 Concentrations (eCO2)

Despite many years of claims that increasing concentrations of CO2 are an “existential threat” to life on Earth, one cannot identify any harm that has been done. In fact, the only clear result of increasing CO2 has been an overall greening of the Earth and increasing productivity of agricultural and forest crops.

The evidence for greening of the Earth from eCO2 is now too obvious to deny. In recent years, some researchers have claimed that that nutritional values are negatively affected by elevated CO2 concentrations. Media promoters of climate alarmism have seized on these results to further demonize CO2.

Mutta sitten tuossa linkatussa tutkimuksessa:

In this paper we explain why the nutritional value of our more abundant crops can and will remain high as atmospheric CO2 concentrations increase toward values more representative of those existing throughout most of Earth’s history.

While this is a somewhat technical report, it is a valuable tool for you to put in your quiver to use the next time you see increased CO2 being linked to declining nutrition.

Kasvin tai kasvin poskeensa pistäjän näkökulmasta ilman hiilidioksidipioisuutta ei siis pitäisi vähentää.

[Heikki Jokipii]

TällaiSen jättiläismäisen suunnitelman otsikon asiassa halutaan (tai jotkut haluavat) etenevän  UK:ssa:

Green Blob Tells Government to Spend £30 Billion on Machine to Remove CO2 From the Air

A story in the Telegraph last week featured a report by Energy Systems Catapult (ESC) which recommended the Government commit to a £30 billion project to pull CO2 from the air. According to the report, Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS) machines sited across the east coast could separate the greenhouse gas from air and pump it to underground storage facilities, thereby helping the U.K. to meet its ambitious 2050 Net Zero target. Not only is this extraordinarily expensive idea pointless in itself, it exposes the equally pointless and expensive constellation of publicly-funded lobbying organisations.

According to ESC, “carbon capture in its various forms is a critical component of a low-cost energy transition”, and “without it, at scale, we risk non-compliance with our Net Zero requirement”. And here is the thing that would, were such things subject to public debate, cause millions of people to scratch their heads. So what if the U.K. does not comply with its Government’s self-imposed target? What is the ‘risk’? And why should the public fork out billions of pounds merely for a daft machine that serves no function other than help a Government achieve its ambition that nobody else really cares about?

Madder still, the ESC admits that DACCS “remains unproven at scale”. This raises two important problems.

Voi maksaa enemmänkin, mutta perusongelma on tämä:

It is a problem known as putting the cart before the horse. And it is a characteristic of all climate-related policies that they are driven by ambition, not reality. Not even ESC can explain what DACCS is, how it will work or how much it will cost. All they really know is that it will be required to remove 48 million tonnes of CO2 from the air each year from 2050 – approximately a tenth of the U.K.’s current domestic annual emissions.

Vanity and intransigence drives this irrational push for solutions to non-problems. Air capture of CO2 serves no useful purpose whatsoever. It won’t make a dent in atmospheric CO2 concentration. It won’t change the weather. It won’t make anyone’s life better. And it won’t stand up to any meaningful cost-benefit analysis. £30 billion, roughly equivalent to £500 per head of the population, could do vastly more good were it to be spent in countless other ways, from healthcare through to addressing genuine environmental issues such as water quality. Of course, not spending the money on such contraptions would likely do more good by leaving that much money in people’s pockets to spend how they see fit.

(lihav. HJ)

Eli oikeastaan tämä sama.

Suomessa asiaa funtsataan.

[Heikki Jokipii]

Näin (lihav. HJ):

GREGORY WRIGHTSTONE: Scientific Report Pours Cold Water On Major Talking Point Of Climate Activists

The purveyors of climate doom will not tolerate the good news of our planet thriving because of modest warming and increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. However, a recent scientific paper concludes that an optimistic vision for Earth and its inhabitants is nonetheless justified.

Widely accepted data show an overall greening of Earth resulting from a cycle of natural warming that began more than 300 years ago and from industrialization’s additions of CO2 that started in the 19th century and accelerated with vigorous economic activity following World War II.

Also attributed to these and other factors is record crop production, which now sustains 8 billion people—ten times the population prior to the Industrial Revolution. The boost in atmospheric CO2 since 1940 alone is linked to yield increases for corn, soybeans and wheat of 10%, 30% and 40%, respectively.

The positive contribution of carbon dioxide to the human condition should be cause for celebration, but this is more than demonizers of the gas can abide. Right on cue, narrators of a planet supposedly overheating from carbon dioxide began sensationalizing research findings that increased plant volume results in lower concentrations of nutrients in food.

“The potential health consequences are large, given that there are already billions of people around the world who don’t get enough protein, vitamins or other nutrients in their daily diet,” concluded the The New York Times, a reliable promoter of apocalypse forever. Among others chiming in have been The Lancet, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and the National Institutes of Health.
[..]
Having virtually no scientific basis, the “green” movement’s hostility to carbon dioxide seemingly ignores the gas’s critical role as a plant food. As the paper notes, “CO2 is the only source of the chemical element carbon for all life on Earth, be it for plants, animals or fungi and bacteria — through photosynthesis and food chains.”

The so-called greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide— perversely exaggerated to support climate fearmongering—  is a life-saving temperature moderator that keeps Earth from freezing over.

The obvious benefits of CO2 is “an embarrassment to the large and profitable movement to ‘save the planet’ from ‘carbon pollution,’” write the authors. “If CO2 greatly benefits agriculture and forestry and has a small, benign effect on climate, it is not a pollutant at all.

More CO2 is good news. It’s not that complicated.

Pitäisi siis miettiä kaksi kertaa, ennenkuin sitä ryhdyttäisiin sieltä massiivisesti pois imememään.

[Heikki Jokipii]

Edellä syitä, miksei näistä tieteeen saavutuksista voi varauksettomasti iloita:

AI-engineered materials could absorb CO2 faster than trees — and speed up carbon cleanup initiatives

Paavo Haavikon lausetta mukaillen: onko niin, että maailma on niin pieni, ettö tänne mahtuu vain yksi ajatus kerrallaan?

Täältä keskeisin paradoksi:

Kyselytutkimuksessa kysyttiin ensimmäistä kertaa ilmastonmuutoksen ja luontokadon yhteyksistä. Jopa 79 % vastaajista on sitä mieltä, että ilmastonmuutokseen ja luontokatoon tulisi etsiä ratkaisuja kokonaisuutena. 64 % vastaajista on sitä mieltä, että Suomen hallituksen on toimittava aktiivisemmin luonnon monimuotoisuuden köyhtymisen eli luontokadon pysäyttämiseksi.

Jos osoitetaan, että luonto voi sitä paremmin ja monimuotoisuus sitä suurempaa, mitä enemmän hiilidioksidia ilmassa on?

Mikä on oikeastaan jo osoitettu.