We're dealing with layers of denial here, and it's worth looking at the full picture. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/11/stripe-climate-carbon-removal/617201/

Why write this, @yayitsrob? https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/11/stripe-climate-carbon-removal/617201/

Two things that do not seem likely to fit into the future, at least at a scale that fits the 2C target: carbon capture and flying. To hear more about that, interview people who may know better. It's not like the people to talk to are hiding. https://twitter.com/UKFIRES/status/1202853809367764992

Failure to speak to experts across domains cripples journalism, @yayitsrob.
This is a critical time; and propagating fantasies would not be a productive use. https://twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/1330938264258301954?s=20

Out of all things to pick as a 'hill to die on,' as our coastlines burn or disappear beneath the sea, why aviation? It's used frequently only by a tiny group, some of whom (a founder of @Stripe & a benefactor of @TheAtlantic) want it to be even faster. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-06/boom-technology-wants-to-build-supersonic-jet-that-cuts-flight-times-in-half?sref=yvbDthFP

As far as the credibility of carbon capture, the puzzle to look at is, how is it not double-counting? We're going to need to capture more than we know how to do already, so each project now is already on our 'imaginary books' for future capture.

In other words, we've already *spent* our capture budget, and just to catch up to it is [barely/not at all] plausible. We now need to find ways to be *less* reliant on capture, not *more* reliant on capture. The only pathway we have tech for now is P1. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SPM3b.png

It's easier to write 'carbon capture' than it is to build an industry at relevant scale. https://thebulletin.org/2016/10/wed-have-to-finish-one-new-facility-every-working-day-for-the-next-70-years-why-carbon-capture-is-no-panacea/

BECCS, the method presented in the IPCC 1.5C report, and shown as the yellow area in the pathways above, is equally implausible. https://www.nature.com/news/emissions-reduction-scrutinize-co2-removal-methods-1.19318

We're writing ourselves into fictions and we should stop doing that, @yayitsrob.

Ironically, it was interviewing Klaus Lackner that got me to stop flying. I know the emotional experience of a personal interview (w/high school students in the room, no less) is not a scalable education method, but that's why we need journalism to work.

I would admit that maybe the idea of wealthy, well-educated people stepping back from their interests is maybe equally implausible, especially as we watch some of them try to make a supersonic plane (while even wealthier ones launch private space programs).

Then I think we need to begin to write about the world we're heading towards, with climate impacts more severe (fires in California & Australia a taste of what's coming), migration, starvation, *and* supersonic jets. I think in that world, solar radiation management crops up.

Solar radiation management is a morally dubious & environmentally questionable idea, but logistically simpler than getting same effect by CO2 capture at scale. Since 'we're not going to quit flying' is (accurately) the kind of position that leads us to it, I relay contacts...

...people you might speak to for a realistic examination of these choices. I mean physically realistic as well as socially realistic. @yayitsrob @hughhunt @UKFIRES @DKeithClimate @AliceClimate @KevinClimate @StuartBCapstick @steviedubyu @RoRandall2 @Bankfieldbecky @juliendossier