If the world really is going to end in the next 100 years due to greenhouse gasses, why isn't the focus more on recycling CO2 in the atmosphere through natural and artificial means?

I mean we can't go carbon free in the next 50 to a hundred years realistically, but we sure as hell can offset the carbon.

*"why isn't the focus more on recycling CO2 in the atmosphere through natural and artificial means?"*
cuz then it raises the question of what to do/what happens with that captured carbon.
Trees and plankton will capture it naturally, but when they die/decompose, they release it back in to the environment.
Alkaline hydroxides will capture it but when that decomposes with heat, it releases it back out too.
If you could then convert it to say, a form of energy that was cheap and clean, without using fossil fuels on a large enough scale, then you would have energy companies clamoring for it.
It is possible to make a plastic out of it, but it takes a butt-load of energy to do it and you are still left with a waste product that can release that carbon at it's end of life. Trees are actually more efficient at making construction products than the process of turning carbon in to a cellulose-based plastic with PV energy

There's a place in BC that is looking at capturing carbon and then turning it into fuel actually

If their capture method is as scalable as they think it is

what is the emissions/waste product of that fuel?

Gosh... if the global temperature does rise, they are talking about average temperature. For example it will not mean that you are going from highs of 110 to 119, rather the your winter temperature will probably rise from 10 to 23.
We survived Krakatoa which resulted in three years of no summer back in the 1800s, we have better resources today.
A warmer earth is a more humid earth, which means more the world will be able to harbor plant life, plants will grow faster because of the higher Co2 and absorb more of it in the process, and deserts are going to shrink provided humans don't do destructive land practices. This equates to more cropland/grazing land.
99% of people will survive even the worst global warming, we may have to move to higher elevations, but locations closer to the poles will become more livable too.

This talking about global warming as some sort of apocalypse is so bunk.

A reason why some are against carbon capture and reuse is that it justifies the continued use of fossil fuels. No joke.

Or at least that’s how they view it

Just like greeners don't want nuclear, they do not want to save the planet, they want to hamper human advancement.

I’d say it’s more of a purity spiral, and the lay environmentalists don’t realize that.

They have forgotten that the way to get to your goal is step by step.

Some realize that. Unfortunately there’s a large number of environmentalists who actually believe that 100% renewables is possible by 2030

At best renewables could get to 40% electric generation by 2030 in the US.

wind and solar may be "free", but the intermittence factor is fricken expensive

The thing is, we have been moving in the right direction all along. Coal burns much cleaner than wood, oil burns much cleaner than coal, gasoline/diesel/kerosine burn much cleaner than oil.

I dont know what the downside is other than it apparently requires hydrogen to create the fuel. I think it just releases the carbon in the process is the idea

It's why there is not longer a London soup fog.

*you guys had to keep shining the Sal signal*

?

Energy and environment issues are the topic I talk about the most.

k

It bores shadows. lol

lol

It doesn't bore me, just rarely anything new is ever said.

Generally speaking, intermittency only becomes a problem when renewables penetration gets high enough.

Sal was going to show up regardless anyway, shadows

Which is good.

The us could integrate 60-70% renewables before issues really start.

Past that it gets weird. And past 80% it’s very expensive

and that's why zero emissions is a problem

60-70? yeah i don't think so - more like 15%

lets not forget the lithium and other minerals that need to be mined for batteries, that then get disposed of at EOL

The us gets 20% of its electricity generation from renewables.

There are regions where that level is much higher.

then that means the other 80% is still done far in excess of demand

Sup feds ❤️

Well, that’s going to be the case anyways. Spinning reserves already existed.

I’m saying that past 80% it’s very difficult to get renewables to penetrate further because of that.

Environmentalists treat pumped hydro like it’s a holy grail. Many harp on how cheap it apparently is, but can never explain why it doesn’t make up the majority of peaking power currently.

They hate hydro cuz of habitat destruction