If you have water flooding your house what is your first step in solving it, fixing the burst pipe or buying lots of dehumidifiers? That’s the question we face when asking if we should invest in reducing our burning of fossil fuels or investing in carbon capture and storage. Sure once the pipes are fixed and there’s no more water flooding into your house dehumidifiers will be needed to fix the damage, but till then they’re just a very expensive way to avoid solving the actual issue

Indeed! Carbon capture can be experimented on in particular industries like cement and steel, but it is not a silver bullet for net zero endeavours.

Let's use a huge amount of energy to reduce some of the emissions of our energy production!!! Wait, does the math on that work out? Does not sound right for some reason.

Carbon capture stops co2 going into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide removal takes it out of the atmosphere. The distinction is pretty fundamental.

You know its a joke when CCS and UAE are used in the same sentence.

While the big companies can feel free to do experiments about carbon capture, public money should not be spent on such projects, and government subsidies on fossil fuels should stop.

The easiest way to capture carbon is by increasing the areas under vegetation, especially in arid places. Desalinated water could be pumped inland to create artificial oases, the energy coming from solar panels so it would not add to our carbon footprint once it was operational. New salt tolerant plant species could be developed through genetic engineering, which for some locations remove the need for desalination. G.E. could also create plants which "fix" more carbon. Working "with" nature is probably our best use of resources. Cheers, P.R.

Beyond money, how much energy is required for carbon capture and storage? Probably more than what we can spare

This is like imagining a person who has 15 minutes left to finish a final exam and hearing them say that it would be best to study for about 2 weeks to be able to pass the exam... for which they only have 15 minutes left.

Unless there is a technical breakthrough that increases the dismal % efficiency of the process scaling up CCS/DAC to useful levels will make the cost of renewable energy unaffordable by the law off supply and demand - a kind of "inverse economy of scale" effect.

All these are great ideas, -- but, have you looked out a window? We need this working now.

All carbon capture projects are smoke and mirrors. Sure, you can technically grab a bunch of CO2 out of the atmosphere, but you cannot do this at any scale required to make a dent in the global CO2 percentage without consuming astronomical amounts of energy. Anyone with some basic physics/chemistry education can work out the math for themselves. As soon as the numbers tell you that you need more energy to capture (and store!) a single CO2 molecule than what the burning of the carbon atom that formed the CO2 in the first place, then you understand that the whole CCS meme is fraudulent.. CCS is being pushed by the fossil fuel sector. These people just want to keep pumping the stuff, that's their bottom line.

Lining the middle bit of hyways that's not used but to redirect water barley. Planting native trees flowers and shrubs cactus succulents. Doing that can reduce spending I mean I don't want to hit a tree Doing 90 mph. It will also reduce lights on other side blinding drivers. Also we can plant native plants on off ramps the odd dirt pach corners. Oh do it all from seed as they adapt better that way and they tend to grow faster but most importantly it's magnitudes cheaper buying and Planting 500 tree seeds then it is to but pre grown trees.

even fully transitioning to green energy would only delay/move our environmental problems. Our current system relies on infinite growth of 3% GDP annually. This is not in line with the first law of thermodynamics which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be moved and reshaped. In only 1500 years we will need the energy of entire milky way to power our economy. Our problem is not only oil, it is the economic system. The only way to get us out of this mess is to down-scale the economy. According to models, we need to downscale the economy with 65% by 2050 and 95% by 2100 to combat global warming.

Solar and wind are already cheaper. This is a desperate ploy to keep extracting more expensive fuel. The oil companies are taking us for a ride off a cliff

1:06 are the carbon sinks, like forests and jungles - will the grazing and mining stop… it’s jacking up the biodiversity that we all rely on for survival.

Listening to Prof Maslin proclaiming that renewable, i.e. wind and solar are cheaper than fossil fuels I am asking where are the facts? If it is indeed cheaper then why does it still require subsidies to be competitive. Why can I build a solar or wind farm without years of environmental studies and approvals but I need to do it for developing any type of mining operation whilst without an in-depth study we can see the destruction of bird species by wind farms? What is the long-term impact on the environment of covering thousands of acres with solar panels? What is the environmental cost of manufacturing wind and solar infrastructure and what happens to this at the end of its useful lifecycle? Do we have the technology to recycle and where will that energy come from. What are the long-term effects of noise pollution from wind turbines? I am involved in developing clean energy with an emphasis on sustainable aviation fuel and biodiesel but I am not buying this massive drive for wind and solar until people can show real, long-term benefits. I also challenge each and every one of these people who want to stop fossil fuels tomorrow to give up using every device or item that stems from fossil fuel derivatives, practice what you preach. The developed world enjoys the current standard of living because of fossil fuels and most climate activists want to put the world 100 years back without offering solutions to replace all the benefits humanity enjoys from it AND they want to deprive the developing world from having the same standard of living. If any of these people are serious and not part of an ESG and Carbon Credit scam, why are they not shouting from the rooftops and demanding that China and India immediately stop building more coal-fired power plants, or is that politically too sensitive for them?

One further point, governments have not been ‘unable to put a price on carbon’, if they put the true price on carbon, i.e. what the transition away from fossil fuels it is going to cost us, or even just what it is going to cost us to get the current and future emissions of carbon out of our atmosphere, to return and keep our climate stable, they would put oil, gas and coal companies out of business in the morning. We need them, as they are well aware, while we transition (which we need to do with all possible speed ) but not a minute longer. No more subsidies for oil, coal and gas.

She says it is very experimental 😂 2:46

Have you ever see a truck a tractor a caterpillar with an electric socket?

I think its pretty misleading to say that renewables are "cheaper, cleaner, and better." As i understand there are very select places like Hawaii and parts of australia where solar is now cheaper than natural gas, but if that were the case everywhere then we would all have solar panels. Its not even true to say that solar panels would necessarily be "cleaner". Most places that produce them(mostly China whose energy is coal based) incur a carbon debt to create a physical solar panel and unless you're using it in a sunny enough place like southwest US you're actually adding carbon to the air by producing them. Until there's better battery technology to store the excess energy from solar/wind we need natural gas to transition. If you're going to be honest about reducing carbon then you need to suggest plans to reduce our total energy usage until that battery tech is ready. If you're not prepared to do that then i'd argue carbon capture has some utility to get oil gas to carbon neutral at least, but it would have to be done at the source somehow. Kinda annoying how the video mentions that, and then just glossed over why its not possible.

The question never addressed: Even if you truly believe that a trace gas, just 42 thousandths of 1% of the atmosphere is the control knob of the climate, how much of it is due to human activity? The answer is easily found using google. This from MIT: "The Earth’s natural carbon cycle moves a staggering amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) around our planet, says Daniel Rothman, MIT professor of geophysics. Some parts of the planet, such as the oceans and forests, absorb carbon dioxide and store it for hundreds or thousands of years. These are called natural carbon sinks. Meanwhile, natural sources of CO2 such as undersea volcanoes and hydrothermal vents release carbon. Altogether the planet absorbs and emits around 100 billion metric tons of carbon through this natural cycle every year, Rothman says. That’s equivalent to over 350 billion tons of CO2. (Scientists often measure the carbon cycle in terms of the weight of carbon atoms, not whole molecules of carbon dioxide, because the carbon has the same weight no matter what form it takes as it moves between plants, ocean, atmosphere, and other parts of the natural world.) This natural movement of carbon dwarfs humanity’s contribution: it amounts to ten times as much CO2 as humans produce through activities such as burning fossil fuels." Our annual emissions equate to no more than a couple of extra CO2 molecules per tree leaf on the planet, let alone every other type of plant, and phytoplankton covering the oceans all absorbing CO2 from the air. Then consider that all the fauna on the land, in the sea and in the air is composed of carbon compounds that were once in the air as CO2. The claim that it is only our "emissions" that remain in the air and accumulate year on year, nature cannot cope with our contribution or that the carbon cycle was somehow magically in perfect equilibrium before we started to burn coal and oil is a complete fairy tale designed to fool the gullible. And here you are.

Renewables are cleaner?! How are solar panel and battery considered to be clean? Everything about energy is a sham.

What is the CCUS cost for taking the CO2 out of the atmosphere caused by burning 1 litre or gallon of petrol / gasoline? And why is it not added to the cost of the fuel today if we need to suck it out of the atmosphere tomorrow? We need a price on carbon, it's good for everyone. Diesel engines produce 2.7 kg of CO2 per litre of diesel fuel consumed. So 370 litres of diesel burned cause a tonne of CO2 to be emitted into the atmosphere. At a carbon price of $150 per tonne, this would mean $0.40 per litre (or $1.50 per US gallon) should be charged on each litre and put toward CCUS.

The best method is not even discussed here and one day we will watch this type of video and weep…as we come to understand the power of nature to heal…when we stop chemical agriculture and grow healthy soil and food the plant and microbial life itself will use up the extra carbon…no big tech needed. You will see.

Fungus and bacteria can lock co2 in soil

DAC who is investing in this? The business case is weak because you would invest in CCS and you need a high premium on the emission trading system.

Minute 3:30, the kind of “scientist” that is not truly worried about climate, but against oil and gas industries.

It’s the biggest issue facing civilisation - if not carbon capture then what? Not a question we’ve even begin asking ourselves.

We’re fucked.🤦🏻‍♂️

This is like saying: instead of stop producing heroine, let's use a little bit of the profit we make with it and invest in methadone 👌😂

"The question is, can companies that were part of the problem, be part of the solution?" WTF kind of question is this? This is what people mean whey they say environmentalism has turned into a punitive religion. If oil companies want to be part of the solution, let them. We need an "all of the above" approach. The whole point of this transition IS NOT the elimination of fossil fuels, but rather the elimination of greenhouse gasses. You can eliminate the greenhouse gasses by eliminating the fossil fuels, but that's not the only way to do it. If the oil companies can provide carbon-free fossil fuels, that would be a miracle for the world. Instantly, we could meet all the climate goals, and developing countries could still access affordable energy.

You just need real estate value re-evaluation to decrease prices of real estates. These excess values will then be taken to be reinvested into proven existing technology. By doing this you satisfy all stakeholders. The only damage is on those hoarders with multiple properties and maybe banks.😅

8:26 Direct Air Capture "costs are $600-plus today, we see a path to get below $200 a tonne". What this comment fails to note is that DAC will always be more expensive that point-source CCS, since you have to process 240x more air than with flue gases from, for example, cement production. Also, CCS shouldn't even be considered unless it displaces not-currently electrifiable (hard to abate) industries like cement. Maybe two decades ago, fossil fuel power generation looked like it was hard to replace with renewables, but today solar and wind are cheaper, even if you factor in the cost of battery storage overnight. As mentioned, renewables are domestic and more secure (a smaller carbon footprint from shipping). Another point is that fossil fuel plants kill 5 million people a year with their fine particulate emissions, so on health ground alone it is completely unjustified to keep investing and operating (even subsidizing!) fossil fuel power generation. There may be a role for point-source CCS, if it becomes cheap enough, in Bioenergy and CCS (BECCS), as the IPCC reports note. This would be directly negative emissions, not just avoided emissions in hard-to-abate industries. But until most regions of the world are saturated with BECCS power generation plants, there is no point in trying to scale up DAC which will always be more expensive. It's not a technology or engineering problem, its just the economics of DAC.

Doesn't nature already have a functional carbon capture solution? What's it called now...

The skinny: Prof. Mark Maslin is correct. This in no way means we don't have to quit burning fossil fuels. That's it. It's just greenwashing ("quite an aggressive path to commercialization", "scaling"? perleeze!). So many "ifs" here. Dear ADNOC, get back to us when the math works, environmentally, economically, socially, and at scale -- or even if it looks like it might. Every dollar spent on this tomfoolery is a dollar not spent on real solutions (how many wind turbines are there where you live? just look at the thousands of them off the U.S. East coast -- right? /s).

'carbon capture' isn't just 'very experimental', it's smoke & mirrors by the oil barons

Putting price on Carbon alone will not solve the issue. The Financial and Capital Markets need to be reformed. If we look at scaling RE technical issues kick in (e.g. Duck curve, Skip rates etc) and if compounded by short termism lens that they are valued on, just do not support these issues requiring long term lens and investing /Financial models and cost benefit analysis. Vested interests wont allow this.

Watching this I would never guess fossil fuel conglomerates are still the most concentrated investment of global capital. Fossil fuel production has only increased year over year regarless of how dire the consequences science folks say that will be. Capital investment will take us to over 5°C of warming as long as profit decides how/when the economy finally ditches fossil fuels. So yeah, us costal folk best move to higher ground.

Carbon Capture ... LOL BAN PLUTONIUM 40 YEARS AGO! **EINSTEIN**

All oil production is dirty and they should clean thier waste

It is additional expenses in the processing industries for make the energy therefore it is not taken up in two decades. Let see how could change now on. There are multiple things are in development to reduce CO2.

This is greenwashing if I ever saw it..

I still see a HUGE problem with Carbon Capture that NOBODY seems to even realize exists. There are two Oxygen atoms for every one Carbon atom in CO2. So, to me, carbon capture is really oxygen capture. You are taking CO2 that is used by plant life, and removing the carbon, but also the oxygen, which is required by animal life! If this technology takes off, will anybody be monitoring the ratio of oxygen in the atmosphere?

CCS is ridiculous! This would be the same a desalinate the oceans.

nature already captured it. leave it in the ground.

ITS A SCAM

Stupid scam, but what would you expect fossil fuel companies

Why keep investing on fossil fuel infrastructures? Well, the answer is simple: Greed. Wealthy people and politicians just couldn't get enough of profit. During the COP28, UAE and Chinese leaders were caught accidentally by cameras laughing about admitting they have been working hard on digging for more oil in the last 5 years.

How does the whole bitcoin thing work? i'm interested in it, willing and able to invest heavily, but i need an assistance to guide me through how to run a profitable startup and avoid making mistakes.

Australia 🇦🇺 is better for Carbon Capture. There's Lot of Empty Land and Runoff Water for Carbon Capture In Biomass.

an obvious hoax by O&G companies😂😂😂