X, the moonshot factory’s Post

👨🔬 ♻️ 🌎 A recent collaborative study with Berkeley Lab scientists found that plants across the world are more productive than previously thought. But if they absorb carbon faster than expected, this means they also release carbon faster than expected, changing scientists understanding how much carbon plants store. "...Carbon cycles more rapidly between the atmosphere and biosphere than we thought. We need to better understand and account for this more rapid cycling in climate models.” - Berkeley Lab scientist Charles Koven in a recent Earth.Com article. Learn more: https://bit.ly/4eVoSUo

This week, the controversy surrounding a University of Washington study on marine cloud brightening - which includes testing a saltwater spraying machine from the deck of a retired aircraft carrier - is ramping up. Concerns about "unpredictable side effects" are clashing with scientists who promote researching these technologies in order to understand if/how they can be used to help tackle the #climate crisis. Full article by Nicolás Rivero in The Washington Post: https://lnkd.in/ebv7YR42 Included in the article is a quote from David Keith, Director of the Climate Systems Engineering Initiative at the University of Chicago: “This generation is not likely to be the one that makes decisions about actually deploying these technologies. Those will only get made in 20 years by the next generation. Right now, our only real choice is: Do we research them or do we not?” This is exactly the question that the Co-CREATE Project aims to answer. Co-CREATE will examine the governance principles and guidelines for responsible Solar Radiation Modification research. Find out more: https://lnkd.in/dVmkN3eB Perspectives Climate Group, Climate Strategies, Centre national de la recherche scientifique, CMCC Foundation - Centro Euro Mediterraneo sui Cambiamenti Climatici, Kiel Institute for the World Economy, Arctic Centre, University of Lapland, Trilateral Research, The University of Manchester, University of Twente, UCL.

Humanity produces a staggering amount of CO2: more than 35 billion tons of it each year. The Earth soaks up roughly half of that, Charles Harvey of MIT Civil and Environmental Engineering says, when it moves carbon dioxide from the atmosphere into the ocean, plants, soils, and other natural “carbon sinks.” To fully cancel out our carbon emissions, humanity would have to capture and store the other half, or nearly 20 billion tons each year. Find out more in the latest #AskMIT: https://lnkd.in/eKeG5fX2

The newest For ClimateTech newsletter is OUT! Learn where to find us at #VERGE, new funding opportunities, and the latest news on a scary good month for our climate tech companies. #climatetech https://lnkd.in/e7Gi9kNA

Net Zero is not just a target to suddenly achieve on 31 December 2050; it is a cumulative impact from emissions year-on-year,. So, 'neutral' emissions might be great to enable business-as-usual but we need a significant change in behaviour and technology to reduce emissions as soon as possible to minimise the worst impacts in the future.

Earth Day by Kerby Anderson Today is Earth Day. I was a participant in the first Earth Day as a high school student and remember one equation. It was I=PAT. The environmental impact (I) was equal to the population (P) multiplied by affluence (A) multiplied by technology (T). In other words, as a country grew in population and affluence and technology, the worse the pollution and environmental impact. The obvious conclusion was that the best way to protect the planet would be to have fewer people, less wealth, and simpler technology. It was an interesting equation, but it turned out to be wrong as countries got richer. John Tierney pointed this out in his column in The New York Times. He acknowledges that the “IPAT theory may have made intuitive sense, but it didn’t jibe with the data that has been analyzed since that first Earth Day.” Researchers instead found that the graphs of environmental impact with a simple upward-sloping line were wrong. Instead, it turns out that the line flattens out and then slopes downward. This is called a Kuznets curve. Here’s the trend: as countries get richer, they have more incentive and more financial means to clean up pollution. Of course, there are exceptions (especially with countries with inept governments and a poor system of property rights). But the general rule is that as incomes go up, people focus on pollution. Tierney says: “As their wealth grows, people consume more energy, but they move to more efficient and cleaner sources — from wood to coal and oil, and then to natural gas and nuclear power, progressively emitting less carbon per unit of energy.” I think this suggests a positive environmental future for developing countries. They may be ascending the Kuznets curve right now, but may soon be ready to address environmental concerns.

🌍 Exploring Geoengineering: Innovation or Risk? 🚀 Last year marked the hottest in modern history, with shockingly warm oceans and increasingly intense floods, fires, and droughts underscoring the gravity of the current situation. As climate change continues to escalate, so do the efforts to combat it. The latest frontier? Geoengineering — once dismissed as impractical and far-fetched, now gaining traction as a potential solution. From infusing clouds with sulfur dioxide to vacuuming carbon dioxide out of thin air, the possibilities are both ambitious and controversial. A recent article sheds light on these groundbreaking technologies and the entrepreneurs behind them. One notable project already underway is Oxy's direct air-capture plant in Texas, set to become the world's largest. With giant fans and chemical processes, it aims to capture and sequester carbon dioxide deep underground. While some applaud such initiatives, others voice concerns about their effectiveness and environmental impact. Critics argue that these projects, while well-intentioned, may divert attention from the urgent need to reduce fossil fuel emissions. Nonetheless, the market for geoengineering ventures is poised for significant growth, from less than $10 billion today to as much as $135 billion by 2040, according to Boston Consulting Group (BCG), signaling a shift towards more proactive climate action. As we navigate this uncharted territory, important questions emerge: Who holds the power to alter the planet's atmosphere? What criteria should these technologies meet before implementation? While the debate continues, one thing is clear: the need for international collaboration and standards to govern these transformative efforts. Only through collective action can we navigate the complex intersection of innovation, responsibility, and environmental stewardship. 🌱 What's your take on geoengineering? Is it ethical? Leave your opinion in the comments! To read David Gelles' full article in The New York Times, click here: https://lnkd.in/ezHgqtMC #ClimateAction #Geoengineering #Innovation

The statistics about the progress of #climatesolutions are as shocking as the numbers that describe the growth in #wildfires, #glacial melt and damaging #storms, yet they rarely appear in the news. Good news is not really considered to be news. The #energytransition is taking off at a rapid clip. This should not be a secret. Those of us who work to fend off #climate armageddon should look at the progress we have made, in addition to how far we must go. Urban Future Lab,RMI,Building Energy Exchange,The Clean Fight,Greentown Labs,Los Angeles Cleantech Incubator,Activate, SecondMuse,Powerhouse,Elemental Excelerator,Cleantech Open,EIT InnoEnergy,Launch Alaska,New Energy Nexus,VertueLab,Wells Fargo Innovation Incubator (IN2)