• Kata1yst@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    By definition it isn’t carbon sequestration if the grams CO2 equivalent (gCO2e) isn’t negative after a full lifecycle study. Lifecycle studies are somewhat contentious as you might imagine since they try to encompass so much in one number, but generally studies agree that the major proposals are strongly negative.

    You can read more about that here for a few of the more likely candidates. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration#Geologic_carbon_sequestration

    • elouboub@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      By definition it isn’t carbon sequestration if the grams CO2 equivalent (gCO2e) isn’t negative after a full lifecycle study.

      I think that should be the definition, but looking at the wikipedia page that you shared, it doesn’t seem to be. At least not by:

      There’s no notion that it has to be have a net negative CO impact, which is exactly what I assume businesses and politicians rely on. They can say “we’re putting away carbon”, which is technically true, but they don’t have to say how much carbon was used in order to do so.

      IMO, until at least the carbon cost of sequestration is reported instead of just the monetary cost, the contracts aren’t worth the paper they are written on.