The study, published Wednesday in the journal Nature, found that global carbon storage capacity was 10 times less than previous estimates after ruling out geological formations where the gas could leak, trigger earthquakes or contaminate groundwater, or had other limitations. That means carbon capture and storage would only have the potential to reduce human-caused warming by 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.26 Fahrenheit)—far less than previous estimates of around 5-6 degrees Celsius (9-10.8 degrees Fahrenheit), researchers said.
“Carbon storage is often portrayed as a way out of the climate crisis. Our findings make clear that it is a limited tool” and reaffirms “the extreme importance of reducing emissions as fast and as soon as possible,” said lead author Matthew Gidden, a research professor at the University Maryland’s Center for Global Sustainability. The study was led by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, where Gidden also is a senior researcher in the energy, climate and environment program.
what about storing it in plants like forests and jungles and algae? honest question; im a noob
edit: and bogs
What others have mentioned here, plus seagrass and kelp. There is a lot of recovery to do of these once massive ecosystems, thus a lot of carbon to tie up.
It’s all about quantity.
The fossil fuel industry is digging up the plants of forests and jungles and algae that have existed over millennia, then died and decomposed into oil, coal, gas. When you then burn it you release the carbon of hundreds of generations of plant life.
Fossil fuels are dead plant concentrate.
Add bogs to that list. Worldwide, bogs store more CO2 than forests. Restoring them and making sure they don’t dry up (which also would release a lot of gases harmful to the climate) would be a good way to capture CO2.
I don’t have any numbers to compare it to other techniques though, sorry.
On the prairies traditional grass (ie: not the shit in your front/back yard) works better than trees … because the grass has roots that can go down 7’+ and fire can’t kill it.
I think one problem with this is that there is only so much land/sea on earth. Once all available land is forested you have completely maxed out this option. Then when a tree dies and falls over most of its carbon begins to be released back into the atmosphere by decomposing organisms so you are reliant on another tree taking its place to maintain status quo. Same for any biological solution (algae dies/eaten -> carbon released).
We have to complete the gas/crue oil cycle: we must make a freaking pit and beging throwing trees in to free space for more trees
Oil is cursed
Two factors, basically.
Vegetation rots back out to the atmosphere. Bogs are better in that way, because they trap and grow over their own detritus. Managed forests are also pretty carbon-negative, because the carbon is now trapped in whatever wood products for centuries. Ocean-based stuff has had mixed results, though. You could also char and dispose of your biomass before it rots, but now you’re adding complexity.
Which brings us to the second: It might be expensive and slow, relative to just artificially capturing it and shoving it underground. Plants are not known for their speed, and reasonably moist land is expensive.
That being said, it’s still a serious contender for how to take care of carbon we’ve already burned, alongside this and other options like grinding up and spreading certain kinds of stone.