> how about we spend our money on the low hanging fruit: stop burning fossil fuels.
That fruit is hanging quite high if you actually want to pick it. Carbon sequestering is becoming more and more of a requirement to keep global temperatures in check, and I think it is better to invest some money right now so that the research and engineering can provide interest over a longer period of time. We just don't have the time to wait until 2050 to get started on that technology - we need it ASAP, together with 0 emissions.
If (big if) sequestering is enough to bring net carbon down while not reducing emissions, then it's still a win to do so and not reduce emissions. Slowing or reversing climate change is the terminal goal, not reducing emissions.
Option 1: Build green energy + DAC + keep burning fossil fuels.
Option 2: Build green energy + turn off fossil fuel generation stations.
DAC removes about as much CO2 with that green energy as would be removed by simply using that green energy to lower the CO2 intensity of the USA electrical grid.
The difference is that with Option 1 you are still burning fossil fuels (and there is more than just CO2 being produced) and you need even more green energy to replace the fossil fuel generation. Option 2 skips ahead and turns off those plants sooner rather than later.
You are ignoring option 3: Build green energy + DAC + turn off fossil fuel -based generator stations.
We've already emitted more CO2 than is healthy for the world's climate, DAC or other methods to remove CO2 from the atmosphere are all but required at this point.
Yes, except a) public funds are zero sum. Every dollar we spent on building DACs is a dollar we don’t spend on building green energy. See [0], the coal line is going down, but it’s mostly being replace by natural gas. An improvement to be sure, but not enough. The renewable line could be much higher with more public funding. 1.2bn builds a lot of solar/wind/hydro…
And b) again it’s easier to “remove” CO2 from the atmosphere by not putting it there in the first place.
By the way, spending public money on DAC (rather than fining the fossil fuel companies and requiring them to build them) is allowing the fossil fuel companies to push the costs of cleaning up their mess onto the public the while privatizing the profit.
> Every dollar we spent on building DACs is a dollar we don’t spend on building green energy.
Correct, but at some point you need to start with developing CCS, and I don't think we have the time to postpone research and pathfinder facilities even further. Solar and wind power have gotten to a point where the current solutions are already mostly commercially viable, so public money doesn't have to be spent on that. If a small portion of it is instead spent on CCS solutions it could significantly reduce the time to net-zero and then time to 1990s-levels of atmospheric CO2. Solar doesn't remove emissions from difficult to replace chemical processes, but (expensive) DAC can compensate this while other solutions are being explored.
We do need negative emissions, and the buildup of wind/solar is not that. DAC can be one solution, olivine weathering another, but ignoring the buildup of CO2 while rushing emission stops may still result in too much CO2 over too much time.
> And b) again it’s easier to “remove” CO2 from the atmosphere by not putting it there in the first place.
That doesn't solve the issue where we've already put in too much CO2 in the atmosphere.
Solar/wind are indeed competitive now, and would be even more competitive once countries get their act together and stop allowing fossil fuels to treat the atmosphere as a free sewer.
That fruit is hanging quite high if you actually want to pick it. Carbon sequestering is becoming more and more of a requirement to keep global temperatures in check, and I think it is better to invest some money right now so that the research and engineering can provide interest over a longer period of time. We just don't have the time to wait until 2050 to get started on that technology - we need it ASAP, together with 0 emissions.