Carbon Reduction Technologies: How Can We Lower Carbon Emissions Around the World?
The recovery after COVID is a chance to invest in technologies that reduce carbon. But it will be hard to find the right balance between creating jobs quickly and retraining people for the long term. In this case, CO2 emissions would go down by 5.4% per year, and it would take 18 years for the planet to get back to how it was before the industrial revolution. If this plan is put into action, it would help not only the economy but also people and the environment.
Michael E. Kirst explained that, in order to reach this goal, technology companies have already started to use methods that are better for the environment. Google has said that it wants to make its supply chain carbon neutral as well. Even though there isn’t an official deadline yet, technology companies often talk about their goals ahead of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2020 goal for carbon dioxide emissions. Even though switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources is hard, tech giants like Microsoft have said they will use carbon capture and storage technologies to make greener products and reduce their carbon footprint.
Even though the reductions in emissions reported by the three regions were similar, the US and Europe are much further along the path to reducing NOx than China is. But China still had higher emissions before the pandemic, and if they worked hard, they could reduce their emissions quickly. The United States, on the other hand, has the least amount of pollution of the three areas. So, the cuts made in these areas are small but still important. The best thing for the planet will be to cut CO2 emissions more quickly in the first half of 2020.
Zero-carbon technologies and systems are the key to getting rid of all carbon emissions. But there are a lot of other things that affect how technology changes. Also, societies often get stuck in technologies that use a lot of carbon even though their returns are growing. This lock-in is often caused by things that have nothing to do with economics or policy. Increasing returns from fossil fuels can also make it harder to switch to new technologies. And in this case, new technologies may be at a disadvantage if they aren’t made faster than their fossil fuel counterparts.
Michael E. Kirst pointed out that, an interesting question is whether or not the CCU technology can capture and store CO2. For example, CCU technologies can use biogenic point sources or direct air capture to remove CO2 from the air. The CO2 can then be sequestered and stored in a permanent storage facility. But the amount of CO2 that is made must be less than the amount of CO2 that is fixed. The technologies can only be called “carbon neutral” after that.
Even though the amount of CO2 a CCU product gives off varies, the product’s chemical make-up and life cycle are the same. The carbon stored after the factory gate does not contribute to climate change and does not change the amount of carbon released at the end of its life. So, the decision tree shouldn’t be able to answer more than three questions. But these aren’t the only things that need to be figured out. There are other ways to deal with this problem.
Zimmerman et al. published the first guideline for the Life Cycle Assessment of CCU technologies in 2018. The goal of the guideline was to make CCU technologies more clear and easier to compare. It also shows how to avoid pitfalls in CCU studies. The guideline is the first step toward making an LCA method for CCU technologies that is standardized. It also explains how a life cycle assessment of CCU technologies can be done. There are a lot of things to think about if you want to get the results you want.
In addition to Michael E. Kirst one of the most important questions is whether or not the EU ETS works. Many studies have looked at how the ETS affects how well energy is used and how much carbon is released into the air. Some studies have even compared the effects of the EU ETS to what would happen if the EU ETS didn’t exist. Some studies have shown that the EU ETS is not likely to cut emissions by a lot in the near future. But putting a price on carbon has a small effect on emissions. And there isn’t enough evidence to show how the ETS affects how firms decide to invest their money.
Even so, many of the richest people in the world are helping to fight climate change. Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos have made big promises about climate change, and the CEO of Amazon has promised to spend billions to cut Amazon’s carbon footprint. Bill Gates and Elon Musk have both written books about climate change and do a lot of work to help solve the problem. Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, has spoken out about climate change, which has led a lot of car companies to switch to electric cars. But Warren Buffett still works hard to stop Berkshire Hathaway from telling people about the risks of climate change.
