Categories
Carbon Dioxide Removal

July 3, 2020 – Daily Mail on DAC

Six years ago, on this day, July  3rd, 2020, the Daily Mail published a puff piece about a technofantasy ‘Direct Air Capture’.

  • The PM’s advisor wants to spend £100 million on direct air capture technology
  • The technology uses chemical filters to capture CO2 from the surrounding air
  • The greenhouse gas is then stored underground or reused by various industries
  • But the system is energy-sapping and doesn’t encourage a switch to renewables

Boris Johnson’s chief adviser Dominic Cummings is backing a scheme to suck carbon dioxide out of the air using technology first used on World War Two submarines.

The PM’s advisor wants to spend £100 million on ‘direct air capture’ (DAC) machines, which consist of a stack of metal ‘air scrubbers’ that use a chemical solution to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere.

The CO2-laden solution is then stored underground, reducing the amount of the greenhouse gas that reaches the atmosphere.

,Boyle, D. and Chadwick, J. 2020. Scheme backed by Dominic Cummings to ‘suck’ excess carbon dioxide from the air and bury it underground gets £100m from the Treasury. The Daily Mail, July 3

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 421ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context is that for fifty years now we have been coming up with outlandish technofixes for a basic problem – we have to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide we EMIT.  End of pipe solutions – CCS and DAC – are fantasies. If they weren’t, we’d have them by now.

DAC as fantasy goes back to the late 1990s. I mean, christ.

The specific context was that there was a pandemic going on and fantastic sums of money were being thrown around. Also, Dom Cummings is not quite as smart as he thinks.

What I think we can learn from this – We are going to die.  Horribly. Oh well. 

What happened next

Loads of UK tax payer money is indeed being thrown against the wall on DAC.

You cannae change the laws of physics.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/direct-air-capture-and-greenhouse-gas-removal-innovation-programme-selected-projects/direct-air-capture-and-greenhouse-gas-removal-innovation-programme-phase-1-projects

https://www.missionzero.tech/lab-notes/our-second-direct-air-capture-plant

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

July 3, 1986 – House of Lords debate about the atmosphere and fuel use…

July 3, 1988 – US Navy kills hundreds of Iranian civilians…

July 3, 2008 – Greenpeace occupies an Australian coal plant.

July 3, 2008 – Greenpeace activists enter New South Wales coal power station

July 3, 2012 – Emerson stands by “Horror Movie” performance 

Categories
Canada Scientists

 July 2, 1988 – end of the third meeting of the AGGG

Thirty eight  years ago, on this day, July  2nd, 1988, 

End of the third meeting of the Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases (AGGG), Toronto  (By then, IPCC was in process of creation.  See Agrawala GEC 1999 article-)

“The AGGG was established in 1986, two years prior to the IPCC, almost immediately after climate change emerged on the international political agenda. Following Downs (1972), this was the “alarmed discovery and euphoric enthusiasm stage” within the issue-attention cycle of the global climate regime. The AGGG initially functioned in an almost utopian era where a small network of experts, international organizations and environmental advocacy groups had a near monopoly both on the international science and policy agenda. Unlike the IPCC, excessive governmental vetting or backlash from powerful industrial lobbies did not encumber the AGGG. The advisory group spawned creative goals to address climate change: setting “tolerable rates” of temperature increase which ought not be exceeded, as well as the establishment of emissions targets in terms of percentage cuts from baseline levels. Yet, as the political and economic costs of action on climate change began to take center-stage (the next stage in the Downs issue-attention cycle), the AGGG began to experience a steady attrition in the ranks of its core participants and failed to sustain interest among its institutional sponsors. It reached a comatose state by 1990 in which it has existed ever since, in complete obscurity. The scientific and political spotlight meanwhile has focused almost exclusively on the IPCC.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 351ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that there had been scientists banging on about climate change for quite a while (there’s a doozy of a 1977 letter I will publish on November 30th – bet you can’t wait!).

The specific context was that the Toronto conference on the Changing Atmosphere had just finished. The AGGG folks were probably knackered, since a bunch of them had been very heavily involved in organising that.

What I think we can learn from this is that we are smart enough to identify the problems, and, on a good day, to turn them into issues. To fix them? Not so much…

What happened next

AGGG dies, basically:

“Toronto marked the beginning of the end of the AGGG. Many of its o¦cial members, already playing marginal roles, now dropped out entirely (Table 1)”

November 3, 1990 – money for independent climate scientists? Yeah, nah

 (though the implication in Agrawala’s article is that it stumbled on for a decade?)

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

Agrawala, S. (1999)   Early science-policy interactions in climate change: lessons from the Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases. Global Environmental Change 9, 157-169

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

July 2, 1952 – Rachel Carson says Arctic warming

July 2, 1988 – Scientists warn of devastation…

July 2, 1993. Denialists versus the facts, again.

July 2, 2001 – NRDC blasts “Bush” plan to increase reliance on coal – All Our Yesterdays 

July 2, 2007 – Australia learns it has been left “High & Dry” on #climate change

July 2, 2013 – Boris Johnson, expert on energy systems, attacks windfarms

July 2, 2013 – Ignorant man who became prime minister disses wind farms