Marine carbon storage as a path to decarbonization

The first research mission of the German Marine Research Alliance examines the oceans as carbon stores

A look over the garden fence often helps. While the climate discussion in Austria does not really go on, there is already massive research into CO2 storage(CDR) in Switzerland and Germany.

In Austria most people still assume that we will achieve net zero by planting trees or going solar. Unfortunately this does not work in the scaling that we need. There are many myths here and especially in Austria paradigms are not really questioned. For Example Prof Oschlies explains in the podcast (14:30 ) planting trees (albedo) is a net zero lie.

Therefore there is almost no research funding in Austria for more avant-garde ideas. I am all the more pleased to hear that Germany is undertaking a research mission (EUR 27 million) on CO2 storage with the help of the seas. Approximately the CO2 emissions from China and the USA have to be stored every year.

An interesting approach from the USA is to increase the alkalinity of the oceans with lime, with concentrated solar power from mussel shells.

Seas as carbon stores

“The ocean contains more than 50 times as much carbon as the atmosphere. So far it has absorbed around a quarter of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions and thus
mitigated the effects of climate change, ”explains Andreas Oschlies from GEOMAR, one of the mission’s spokesmen . “However, we expect that the proportion of oceanic CO2 storage will decrease, since the physical, chemical and biological abilities of the ocean to absorb carbon dioxide are impaired by warming, acidification, a decrease in oxygen content and other man- made disturbances ,” adds Gregor Rehder from the IOW, second spokesman for the research mission.

The research mission is made up of six networks

In six associations, various methods of marine carbon dioxide extraction and storage are being investigated with regard to their potential, risks and possible side effects , and effects on the marine environment, the earth system and society are determined and brought together in a transdisciplinary evaluation framework.

ASMASYS will bring together the knowledge about the marine possibilities of active CO2 reduction in the atmosphere and develop a uniform evaluation framework for the different approaches. In addition to scientific principles and questions of technical feasibility, legal, social and ethical aspects as well as political framework conditions are taken into account (coordination: Prof. Dr. Gregor Rehder, IOW).
RETAKE investigates whether and in what form increasing marine alkalinity can be a practicable method to permanently remove significant amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere in an environmentally friendly and socially responsible manner (Coordination: Prof. Dr. Andreas Oschlies, GEOMAR). sea4soCiety focuses on carbon storage in coastal ecosystems rich in vegetation. Taking into account further social use as well as potential risks, innovative approaches are developed that
are intended to improve this natural potential of carbon storage (coordination: Prof. Dr. Martin Zimmer, Leibniz Center for Tropical Marine Research – ZMT).
GEOSTOR is researching the potential of underground storage of CO2 in
sandstone formations under the North Sea. The aim is
to quantify the storage capacities in the German North Sea and to analyze the associated risks and opportunities
(Coordination: Prof. Dr. Klaus Wallmann, GEOMAR).
TestArtUp investigates whether and in what form the upwelling of nutrient-rich
deep water can promote plankton growth near the surface and thus bind more carbon from
the atmosphere (coordination: Prof. Dr. Ulf Riebesell, GEOMAR).
AIMS³ examines the extent to which CO2
can be permanently stored as carbonate in the basaltic upper ocean crust . Planned laboratory experiments accompany studies of the
natural systems on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Innovative monitoring systems should
monitor the environmental impact (coordination: Prof. Dr. Achim Kopf, MARUM – Center for Marine
Environmental Sciences, University of Bremen).
“Both the EU Commission and the German federal government have set
‘greenhouse gas neutrality by 2050’ as a goal. If we want to achieve this,
we have to take ambitious and effective measures now, ”emphasizes Gregor Rehder, spokesman for the
research mission. “The ocean can also help us with this.” His colleague Andreas Oschlies
adds: “All projects will make an important contribution to the UN Decade of Ocean Research for
Sustainable Development. The goal of the decade is international solutions for the
protection and sustainable use of the ocean. ”
Links: Website of the research
mission German Marine Research Alliance (DAM) The GEOMAR Helmholtz Center for Ocean Research Kiel The Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research Warnemünde (IOW)

Ocean-based methods of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
Machine Audio podcast Transcript:

podcast_13282_die_klimadebatte_episode_480184_10_mit_high_tech_ gegen_den_klimawandel ( .mp3

Speaker1: [00:00:00] Could be compensated by nature. For example, methane will continue to be released in agriculture, while cattle farming as well as rice cultivation and organic farming will continue to release nitrous oxide. The nitrogen dioxide in 2o. So far, there is no viable alternative to kerosene in sight for aircraft. During cement production, the chemical process alone creates a lot of CO2. And so there are simply different areas in which climate-effective gas will continue to be emitted or people simply make appropriate changes. Because in addition to the release of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, there are many other anthropogenic environmental effects that are simply there and that have a constant impact on the climate. All you have to do is look at satellite images of the earth. And since climate change is not just ahead of us, but we are already in the middle of it, we can already expect the destruction of nature or changes in the future that cannot be stopped by any means in the world. We have already heard in this podcast that the forests as we know them so far in Germany will for the most part simply not survive the future. And that’s why climate engineering comes into play, or let’s say more generally state-of-the-art technology that can intervene in nature, in natural cycles, in order to correct the processes triggered by humans. Climate engineering, as I understood when researching this issue, is not an alternative to classic climate protection, i.e. switching to renewable energies, consumption, reduction, changing our lifestyles and so on.

Speaker1: [00:01:46] But it is an additional necessary element that, as with all technology, there can be many risks and side effects. Of course, it is also part of the story from two angles. Let’s take a look at technology in climate protection today. In the first conversation with Professor Andreas Excludes. Is it about ways of getting carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, that is, somehow technically simulating what all plants do during photosynthesis, for example. Andreas is Professor of Marine Biology and Biochemical Modeling at the Geomar Helmholtz Center for Ocean Research Kiel. The second point of view applies to AI, artificial intelligence or English Artificial Intelligence, then AI for short or also pronounced AI in German, as we always say DNA, equip DNA and in reality DNS mean that but only as a side note. An expert in artificial intelligence in climate protection is Professor Oliver Zielinski. He heads the Marine Perception research department at the German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence. This area deals with the development and research of sensor systems. Collect and process the data in and around the sea. The focus is on the automatic detection and classification of marine hazards using optical physical sensor networks. The first conversation with Professor Excludes takes about three quarters of an hour.

Speaker2: [00:03:23] Professor. We wanted to talk about technical possibilities to limit global warming somewhat. And before we get to these technical solutions with which you are concerned and what I have read and heard from you so far, I found it really extremely exciting. Somehow I imagined it to be different. But that’s why I would like to hear from you briefly beforehand. About the physics of this CO2 greenhouse effect, because we always talk about it like that. And I think you’re just great at explaining that. We all know by now there has always been CO2 in the atmosphere. It used to be a lot more, it is tied to it, it has become petroleum and we have now put it back into the air. So now we have this in this atmosphere and for some reason it has a greenhouse effect. That means that the sun comes in or the heat radiation, but it doesn’t come out as much. Can you briefly explain why that is?

Speaker3: [00:04:11] Yes, the CO2 has a gas that has three atoms, that every molecule has three atoms. That means that it can vibrate like a music side, the middle atom, that buzzes a bit and the outer one, there are different vibration modes, how this gas molecule can move within itself, like music is actually a piano or String instrument. And that is just stimulated by the frequencies of thermal radiation. And that means the sunlight is too high frequencies, the molecule vibrates too slowly for that. So that comes through unhindered by the gas. But the warmth Radiation, which then goes back into space from the earth or the ocean, becomes these CO2 molecules, these music strings to vibrate and they first absorb energy beam energy, but then again as light or as boring heat radiation, like a music hall just emits the sound. But it goes in all directions. It doesn’t just go into space, but roughly half of it. It is blasted back onto the ground. This means that the heat energy then arrives again on the ground. And that means that this resonance effect of the CO2 molecules ensures that the thermal radiation simply stays longer in the Earth system before it can eventually escape into space. Yes, it is necessary on earth. So you need CO2 to prevent the earth from freezing.

Speaker3: [00:05:44] And the planet has always managed that relatively well for the entire four billion years. There has probably been some global icing, but we’re here today. That is, there was always liquid water. Life could develop and that must have happened somehow in a temperature range between 0 and 100 degrees. And here CO2 was absolutely crucial in order to always allow sufficient thermal radiation to ultimately hit the ground. The sun alone would not be enough. Planet earth is too far away from the sun for that. That means, we already need this resonance effect of the CO2 molecules. And now it is clear the more CO2 emitted, the more of these resonators are flying around in the atmosphere. So the more molecules vibrate, which absorb the energy radiation and also back again. Reflections on the ground are there and the longer thermal energy is kept on the planet before it can then escape back into space and ultimately ensures a radiation balance that as much energy as the sun comes to us, goes back into space as thermal radiation, then you would have a balance again. The temperature would not continue to heat up or cool down. But we’re not that far. Today we are just very much an imbalance that the earth continues to heat up because so many resonators of these CO2 molecules are in the air.

Speaker2: [00:07:04] And does it run evenly in a linear fashion or is there also a tipping point?

Speaker3: [00:07:11] There is no tipping point of the resonators. This is relatively monotonous. So the more CO2 we put in, the more radiation is absorbed and emitted. Back to the ground is a logarithmic function. But that doesn’t matter to us. We know that the more CO2 we put into the atmosphere, the warmer it gets on the earth’s surface.

Speaker2: [00:07:37] So there is no saturation that you can say that now there is simply no additional effect.

Speaker3: [00:07:41] No, that’s not to be expected. At some point, theoretically, there is saturation. But then it would be that this is far beyond anything that can be imagined. We also know the earth must have had very, very high concentrations of CO2 in the past, probably even a few times as much as we have today in gas in the atmosphere, so only in pure CO2. And that saturation is inconceivable. Do you know from other planets? Venus has an extremely high CO2 concentration, insanely high temperatures, so many hundreds of degrees. So that is not to be expected with this gas. So there is no hope that this effect will stop at some point. We actually know that if we stop mimicking CO2, then the warming will stop. And that means that if we have zero net CO2 emissions, then that is in itself pure physics, the value system ensures that the warming also stops.

Speaker2: [00:08:41] But then a temperature then remains constant, then remains constant.

Speaker3: [00:08:45] So we had the one up until then, it stays there, but it doesn’t heat up any further. This is important for all the temperature we have. If we now say 2 degrees, we know exactly that we are allowed to emit CO2 up to 2 degrees. But at that point we have to stop really zero emissions, so every additional molecule of CO2 that we add would lead to further warming and, if the temperature is exceeded, targets.

Speaker2: [00:09:08] Okay, net zero is actually also provided for in the Paris Agreement. It is clear to all of us now. The first way would be, if we go about it now without technical considerations, how can we do it naturally? You always think of the plantings, because that’s what people compensate for their flights or something, but I think you can tell at first glance that the earth itself took millions of years to get this CO2 out of the air in this way to get out. You certainly modeled it. How does it look? How successful can we be on this net

0 come? I don’t want to talk now about what we emit and otherwise how, but simply that we come to this net zero. However. How far is that possible? Through natural biological processes? By reforesting and creating green spaces.

Speaker3: [00:09:52] So, based on what we know from the analyzes of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we will have to extract about as much CO2 from the atmosphere globally in this century as the USA and China have emitted so far. That means, these are ours, even if we try very hard to avoid all emissions, i.e. no longer have gasoline burners, no households that run on gas, take out fossil fuels everywhere. Wherever possible, there are a few residual emissions that we cannot avoid based on current knowledge. That is not much. That is around 10 15 percent of today’s emissions. We have to avoid the rest anyway, so 80 percent has to go. Very, very quickly. And there are technologies for that. That’s a bit of money, a lot needs to be remodeled, rebuilt. But we can do that, I’m very optimistic. We can do that in 25 years, it’s possible. And if we all want, of course, we have to change. We just have to install a different heater. We have to have a different car, we have to travel differently. A lot of behavior changes are required, and some of them cost money. It has to be redistributed. But you can do that in a socially acceptable way. We’re sure of that. These remaining emissions, i.e. 10-15 percent of today’s emissions, sounds small at first, but they are still as much as the USA and China have emitted so far.

Speaker3: [00:11:11] If we assume that the world population continues to grow slightly, that we have economic growth. These are the scenarios we are now assuming for this century. But if we are there and have no major catastrophes, no major wars, no major epidemics, so that everything is always going on in a socially acceptable framework in order to get rid of that with natural sinks, i.e. with reforestation. Planting trees is what we know well, what we also like to do, which at least in Germany has been positively proven according to rules, forest, plants or an apple tree. Then you would need roughly the entire area of ​​Russia that we will have to afforest by the middle of the century, i.e. in addition to the forests that have existed up to now. We can no longer pay attention where it already says. We have to cut down the forest first and that will produce the CO2 because the wood is weathered, decayed and / or burned. We can’t build that many wooden houses. So this is going to stack everything up somehow. And we have to look at the total area of ​​Russia, where do we have it free? So there are open fields somewhere, open spaces. That is very difficult because we have to use most of the free areas on which something grows for agriculture and to feed the world population.

Speaker2: [00:12:24] Otherwise the already natural paradise is growing.

Speaker3: [00:12:26] Yes, but we hardly have any unused, free, untouched nature, where what? We have a lot of desert areas. But forests don’t just grow there either, they could of course be irrigated. We have also modeled this in our climate model. What does the Sahara say, can you irrigate a lot of groundwater? It used to be green 5 6000 years ago. It cannot be ruled out that something will grow there. You can do that. There are oases even today. Then we see that the Sahara and Australia, if you put them together. That is not enough. It is much smaller than the area of ​​Russia. But it is a first step that we can already serve a third of the necessary emissions or the whole middle name, if everything grows well. Of course, this requires a huge infrastructure, above all irrigation. And you have to think about how sustainable it is. We did that in our climate models and saw it there. That works quite well for CO2. There is actually CO2 going into the trees from the atmosphere. That’s what biology is good at. It’s not so good for the planet or the temperature of the planet. So even increases because the forests are much darker, dark green to black, while the Sahara soil or Australian Australian desert is light, is reddish and reflects a lot of sunlight. That means that the earth is seen from space, darker when we suddenly forest, plant and absorb dark areas in the desert areas, more sunlight.

Speaker2: [00:13:53] And that means it is getting warmer, although you have already calculated. So the CO2 is missing. That is, the balance sheet would even be net worth

Speaker3: [00:14:01] In that case. We don’t really want that. And so you have to immediately pay attention to many of these natural solutions

ate. It’s not that anymore. Plant the apple tree in the garden, but the moon has to turn upside down massively, change lawns. It also destroys many ecosystems. So the desert is not dead either, a lot is being destroyed there. But you also change the color of the planet. We also know from our everyday life what immediately has an impact on the absorption of solar radiation. Depending on what we are wearing or what is still on the t-shirt. And that’s exactly what happens to the earth, even if we intervene and change the color of the surface. We do this with every change in the planting. We make that change with every land use. So far this is not so serious because it is relatively small. But what I do in my garden. But if you reshape entire continents in order to get rid of these enormous amounts, which we have to take out to the best of our knowledge, through afforestation, it results in massive interventions in the climate that can possibly be even more harmful than the CO2 that you get wanted to.

Speaker2: [00:15:13] That should be very, very surprising and new for many, this hint. What does that mean in practice if we can’t imagine that as a big solution anyway, because it’s difficult too. What does it mean for the small solution? Is a compensation payment for any kind of reforestation bad or is it a project where the forest has just been cut down and where it has no color effect when it is reforested? Because otherwise it sounds almost threatening, if you could now also say the other way around, we have to cut down the forests so that more warmth is radiated away. Well, the oxygen has to come from somewhere, but that would sound crazy now. But I find it very, very exciting, of course, that it is obviously much more complicated than we always think so quickly.

Speaker3: [00:15:54] Yes, it gets complicated on a large scale. These areas have been redesigned, individual small or regional afforestation measures can be very good, especially on areas that are not used for agriculture now. And I think that such fallow land can be used very well. And color difference between grass or bushes and forest is not that huge. You can also think carefully about which trees you plant on different trees, also different colors, whether you take olive trees or put a fir tree on top. That has an effect. Even trees that are green in winter, i.e. dark, or that shed their leaves in winter, that is a huge effect. That means that you can make much finer adjustments. From a physical point of view, however, it can make a lot of sense to reforest on areas that are somehow overgrown today, i.e. make photosynthesis, and place plants there that produce the harvest wood, i.e. store more carbon in thick trunks or underground in large root plants. That definitely makes sense. But we just have to look at it socially. Do you somehow take land away from agriculture, i.e. from food. We have to fertilize these plants, so they drive up the fertilizer prices afterwards. This is already an issue with such events, even with major regional campaigns. We have already seen that with biofuels or organic plantations, that fertilizers influence prices, which of course also has an immediate effect on food prices. And there we have social problems and we have control problems that we really have to look afterwards. Is this really a new forest or has someone cut down a forest there? Quickly before the go-ahead for the finish line was given and said yes, I don’t have any forest here, but now I’m lazing a lot of money for it and taking out a lot of CO2.

Speaker3: [00:17:39] But in the end the climate doesn’t care because the old forest was cut down a week beforehand and a lot of CO2 is probably released into the atmosphere from the forest through burning or rotting. Then in many cases you even have a negative effect that in the end you currently have more CO2 in the air than if you had it if you had not done anything at all, i.e. not running any conversation projects. We also often see in today’s projects that trees are planted or sown, sometimes only the seeds. But after only a year or two, only a very few percent of it live off what many of today’s combination games are absolutely nonsensical in terms of health, except for those who run them to earn money with it. And in many cases you also report damage to others – you just shovel the areas free, clear the current vegetation, destroy the ecosystem and then do something that cannot work at all, very close controls are then necessary. D.

a we must have certification of this system. There are now a few and they always monitor very closely. What is really good in the long run? Still have to choose tree varieties that can still be there in 30 years. Currently in Germany we see a lot of forests dying off because the climate is changing. And that’s probably the main problem in Germany. We can be happy if we still have 40 trees standing or living trees standing like today. Almost in Germany one can hardly expect that there will be a net increase in wood understanding or there will be a possibility of carbon originating in forests. We have to work very, very hard to keep what we have today.

Speaker2: [00:19:14] Well, that sounds a lot like the fact that it doesn’t work at all without technical solutions, because people accelerate in a natural way. Because naturally we obviously can’t get the CO2 out and maybe even negative effects now. What can we imagine by this climate engineering? Probably the best known is that you somehow take CO2 out of the air or press it outside where combustion takes place and then press it into the ground and hope that it stays there forever or what happens then?

Speaker3: [00:19:39] Yes, you can do that. Always there, where one has concentrated CO2 sources from the chimney of a factory at the power station, maybe also a thermal power station cement plant that catch this CO2, that it becomes liquid and then press it underground into the ground into the ground. There are two major options that are already being used in practice in many countries: old natural gas and oil storage facilities. There was gas in it, natural gas or oil. That is also a gas bubble on top. So you know that it has been stored there for many millions of years, otherwise we would not be drilling, it is no longer there. That means, they are tight for the time being, these deposits, as long as you don’t drill in, if you drill in and extract the gas, you can pump in CO2 or another gas again as soon as these deposits are empty. So it has to work very safely and it works. In many processes, a lot is already being done today in order to squeeze out even the last remaining natural gas. So then you increase the pressure that you pump in CO2, which delivers even more natural gas. This is of course not that great for the climate, but at least there is net CO2 down in the earth. This means that something is actually removed, but to this day it mainly serves to actually extract more fossil fuels. What do we actually not want? There are some deposits there, which are currently being developed in the UK and Rotterdam Port for example, that use the existing oil natural gas platform in the sea to reverse the flow direction and now that they have cleaned out natural gas to pump in CO2.

Speaker3: [00:21:17] And that happens a lot in the North Sea and from my point of view it is a very safe thing. So we are never one hundred percent sure, it can always break out. Earthquake or some idiot drills a hole in there. All of this is extremely unlikely and you can probably protect yourself against it. But we never have zero risk, that’s very clear. You have to deal with that. We are used to that. I think we can always take risks in everyday life. You have to make sure that we see what the worst damage that can occur. We have also had research projects on this and looked at what would happen if one of several gas storage systems on the seabed were to leak and no CO2 escaped. And there we see that it doesn’t even come back into the atmosphere. What already dissolves in the water in the sea water? The bubbles rise, but on the way there is water at 50 meters. This is already resolving in the North Sea. There are 65 local stations in the sea water. Acidification of the sea water, which we currently also have because the CO2 is constantly coming from the atmosphere. And that is also very concentrated locally. It can be as deadly again to many organisms as well. But the global effect will be clear that in the end we will definitely have less CO2 into the atmosphere than if we had never pumped CO2 into the reservoirs. That means, from my point of view, this is always a net gain for the climate,

Speaker2: [00:22:35] So far, this has only been done partially, because at least it has no effect if we look at the fact that the CO2 concentration continues to rise. Or? Or rather it does not have the effect that it no longer increases.

Speaker3: [00:22:46] That’s right. There are a lot of small projects like this. In Norway, it has been doing this in the North Sea for 25 years. They have a high tax on CO2, which arises from crude oil and natural gas production. And then the companies immediately pump it back into others

lower deposits. Still on the same platform. They have been doing this routinely for many years. And so far we have also had research projects to monitor and watch it. If something comes out there, it has not yet been established that something comes out there. So they are tight so far. But we also don’t know whether 100 of them will be there in the future. Every now and then cracks in the sea floor, something could come out of them at some point. We cannot rule that out. But it works well to this day. But they are very, very small projects, individual projects and no company does that voluntarily. There just has to be a high CO2 tax like in Norway. It’s not that high at all. 50 dollars a ton and then it’s worth it for those who are already loosely pumping that down again. But as long as the atmosphere can still be used as a free, free garbage dump, no company or no state has a great interest in somehow taking money into their hands to get something away. Ultimately, I think this entrepreneurial saving works very, very well. We also have huge storage potential, so even in the North Sea it is enough to store all of our emissions for this century.

Speaker3: [00:24:01] And probably, if you have other storage options and there are layers for salt water, you would practically produce where you get CO2. There is virtually unlimited storage potential for everything that we can imagine in terms of emissions. But we don’t have all the CO2 that we produce. Goes focused through a power station, chimney, or cement factory chimney. We make a lot of things diffuse. So we cannot collect Balloon at every house upstairs. The budget book and not on every car, on every airplane. So a lot of our emissions, that’s just the big problem, are spread over a wide area, at irregular intervals and very, very difficult to capture. And then we just have to look. Don’t we want to plant a few trees there after all? So they are also diffuse. They can use this diffuse, very low concentration CO2 in the atmosphere. Or do we build artificial trees? Are filter systems, chemical factories ultimately the submarines? Have they been used for a long time to repeatedly remove CO2 from the air we breathe? In space shuttles, and you could think about it, something like that applies to the entire earth’s atmosphere. All of this already exists. There are companies that sell, that buy them. So very practical. And if you have a garden and these chemical factories, they absorb CO2 from the air.

Speaker3: [00:25:19] You have to push a lot of air past the filters and also use a lot of energy to scrape the CO2 off the filters again. At the end of the day, the costs, so an enormous amount of electricity, if we introduce ourselves. With such chemical plants, we wanted to remove the unavoidable emissions, i.e. these 10 to 15 percent of our current emissions from the atmosphere, then we would have to use all of today’s electricity consumption for this. So the world-wide have to have global electricity production in order to keep all the machines running. And of course this electricity should be renewable. If it comes from coal-fired power plants, it won’t do that much. Then you have so huge is not impossible. We have enough solar and wind energy. We could do it, but you really have to want it. We also have to think about where do we stand then? All the windmills, the solar panels. Not everyone is happy when it’s in the neighborhood. It’s not impossible, but it’s a tremendous effort that, of course, again needs to be openly discussed in society. Must make compensation payments. It has disadvantages from wind energy, it has advantages. As with today’s garbage dumps, that’s actually not the case for garbage dumps or sewage treatment plants. Lots of systems that nobody wants in the garden. From what for the general public they are well communicated.

Speaker3: [00:26:35] That’s a good thing. We do it. And in the end you pay someone money for having the sewage treatment plant in their garden or neighboring property. And then in the end everyone is satisfied, reasonably satisfied and disputes also have to be resolved. That will work and it has to work with CO2 extraction. So we don’t have a solution that makes everyone happy. I can not imagine that. Up until now, that’s always been imagined. These near-natural solutions, i.e. trees, gardens, plants. But they don’t make everyone happy either when that has to happen on a large scale. And that might still give some moors to improve seaweed, planting meadows on the coast are a few other methods. Natural methods like planting trees. But even these will always, if they are scaled larger,

encounter usage conflicts. And there will just be arguments. Winners, losers. We have to discuss that very, very clearly. We can’t get past that completely and we have to prepare instruments for that. And of course science has to provide the knowledge first. What can go wrong, what can happen in the worst case? What do we have to prepare for in order to then build in some kind of insurance system with which we can socially negotiate? How do we want to deal with it? What risks are to be borne by whom?

Speaker2: [00:27:47] But are there any other technical solutions or that are conceivable that you are working on? And if I understand it correctly, it is not realistic to use these filters to get the necessary amount of feet out of the air all over the world. That means, then we wouldn’t get our net even if we wanted to.

Speaker3: [00:28:02] Yes, theoretically it would be conceivable, because then there would be a tremendous effort, there are some other or many other ideas and the idea I favored, it with artificial weathering, i.e. weathering of rock, that is what she has yes, the planet earth has always managed over the billions of years that the temperature has leveled off between 0 and 100 degrees. That means rocks weathering mountains and this is what you see first when Feld breaks off in the mountains. When it’s fresh, it’s colored and when you pass it again after a few years, it’s turned gray. And you can see that on every house wall or street. Everything made of stone, concrete, weathered over time. Weathering is suddenly a reaction with CO2 from the atmosphere. The minerals change, months are formed, a lot rotates, everything is washed by the oceans and contributes to the fact that the ocean has a lot of carbon ions, like carbonara ions and an incredible amount of carbon. In addition, carbon stores forms in ions that are not gaseous. That is already a safe storage that the atmosphere no longer sees. And that is dissolved in the water in the sea water or is gradually washed into the sea via the breakdown products of rocks, of rocks via the rivers. It’s a natural process. So the earth stabilizes everything that has come from volcanoes in terms of CO2 or any major catastrophes that have occurred repeatedly in the history of the earth. That’s how it slowly became. That’s going to happen now. So if we weren’t in such a hurry now or if the current or next generations didn’t have to worry, then we’ll just wait 100,000 years. And then this weather was also successful and also largely cleared away what we are now initiating.

Speaker2: [00:29:43] But then the Alps will no longer be the Alps as they are today or how they are

Speaker3: [00:29:46] They are important. Then a little grayer again and a little bit smaller.

Please follow and like us: