Capturing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere isn't going to be enough: we need to rethink our economies

How best to capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is among the leading technological challenges of the moment: current concentrations of carbon dioxide in the air is around 410 parts per million, which has already triggered a greenhouse effect capable of raising the temperature of the planet to 1oC above pre-industrial levels, which in turn is already creating prolonged droughts, forest fires and natural disasters.

As levels increase, these extreme weather phenomena will become more frequent. The IPCC’s latest report, backed by the scientific community, concludes there is no possibility of containing warming to 1.5oC if we don’t remove between one hundred billion and one trillion metric tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere before the end of the century.

Carbon dioxide is naturally removed from the atmosphere through trees and plants that then leave it in the soil, but that is no longer efficient enough and would require dedicating large areas of land now used for crops. Scientists are working on ways to genetically enhance the ability of plants to fix carbon dioxide in the soil, improving their root development, which could contribute to a reduction of between 20% and 46% of the carbon dioxide that these plants emit, which, while an important improvement, would still be insufficient.

Hence, the focus is increasingly being placed also on developing technologies capable of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere artificially, either by reverting it to solid carbon particles, using it to obtain electricity or hydrogen or by incorporating it into the production of materials like polymers capable of self-healing by using atmospheric carbon dioxide, as well as clothing, animal feed, mattresses, toothpaste, jet fuel, vehicles, cement, plastics or shoes, all being explored by a wide variety of companies fed, among others, by funds to finance projects created in incubators such as Y Combinator. Capturing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is not easy, because it only accounts for 0.04% of the molecules in it, but it is absolutely fundamental, given its effects, and what’s more, we have to do it in very high volumes. The problem, of course, is the cost of these technologies.

The good news? That at least we are now starting to move in this direction, and that without the development and application of this type of technology, nothing we might do in terms of decarbonization and reduction of emissions would be sufficient.

The bad news? The same: removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, even if we were able to do it very efficiently, is not enough on its own, and that, therefore, the aggressive decarbonization of the economy at a much faster rate than our politicians and business leaders seem able to grasp. To continue ignoring this framing action in terms of decades is equivalent to absolute and unforgivable negligence. As George Monbiot says, “perpetual growth on a finite planet leads inexorably to environmental calamity.”

Ideas, research, technology, development and a lot of gray matter are being applied to the most important challenge in the history of humanity. And have no doubts: we’re not talking about theories or hypotheses anymore, we’re talking about science, technology and how to avoid killing our habitat and that of most other creatures within a few decades. The world will survive one way or the other, but we are now facing the end of humanity, which should be of concern to us all, to say the least.

(En espa?ol, aquí)