Article is subject to a paywall, which can be bypassed by clearing cookies for the site, and registering with a made-up email address (it’s checked for syntax but nothing else)
I’ll note that this is a tiny and incredibly expensive part of what needs to happen
They should do it with ocean water instead, as water has 50x’s more carbon than the atmosphere.
Also, fossil fuels companies are going to cite the work funded by the government to continue spewing pollution. Mark my words.
Would that be done through mineralizing the carbon that’s dissolved in the water? I remember hearing about some mineral you could spread in the water that would react with the carbon. I wonder what it would take to produce and spread that at scale with a low re-emission rate.
That’s a bingo!
alternative link (also bypasses paywall): https://archive.ph/h0KNS
Interesting, but there’s no mention in the article of the $/ton CO2 they will pay that I could see.
Presumably it will have to be close to the market (say $100 $/ton today?).
If they go lower there will be no uptake, if they go much higher they will burn through the $3.5B and only achieve a short blip in the market for no real long term benefit.
But I imagine $3.5B used carefully might have some interesting effects.
Edit: I’m not sure $3.5B is the relevant number (but the only one quoted in the article).
So having trees will earn you money? /s
