cschwarm

The politically accepted goal is to prevent dangerous levels of climate change. For this, we need to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in 2050, according to the climatologists. Since there is no way to reduce emissions to zero until then (or possibly ever), we need negative emissions.

Right now, getting a metric tonne of CO2 out of the atmosphere costs about US$ 600 per tonne (with a sufficiently long or large contract). These costs may drop in the future if scaled-up but US$ 600 per tonne is the best estimate we have right now.

This is what emitters need to pay. Something around US$ 175 per tonne (+/- 75) would only buy about 30 percent of the negative emissions needed to reach net-zero. In other words, it's insufficient.

And of course this applies to everybody, not just rich people.

The shutdown of the economy during Covid-19 provided a case study for the costs of reducing emissions by reducing consumption and production. According to the Rhodium group [1]:

> the emission reductions achieved this year as a result of COVID-19 are incredibly costly. We estimate the US will spend between $3,200 and $5,400 of lost economic output per ton of emissions avoided, depending on the shape of the recovery scenario.

In my opinion, only a market for CO2 emissions can find the least-cost solution for a net-zero society (both terms should be understood within the capabilities of human beings). As long as the revenue is actually used to pay for actual negative emissions (not offsets, or hypothetical social costs), climate change will stop (getting worse) as soon as supply equals demand, and a market clearing price is reached.

Let's say, this turns out to be about US$300 per tonne. If so, the article only demonstrates that there's money to be made using carbon capture from the air.

Currently I'm looking at GravCMS [1] as an alternative. It's free initially, but it can become somewhat expensive with many official plugins. But it's file format is Markdown, and one can combine multiple files into a so-called modular page. It has a backend for editing, forms and e-mailing of form submissions. Seems perfect for small and mid-sized company web site.

Another option I considered was Kirby [2]. Its backend UI is configurable. That's nice in theory but the documentation is somewhat lacking, in my opinion. I've used the starterpack and it took me hours to find the one command to be able to add new pages. Its content format is also custom, not Markdown. Finally, it's €100 per site.

Also, a few days ago, I stumbled upon Typemill [3] which I will check next week.

Also, in the German climate and with its many 'old' buildings, merely switching the heat source won't do. One also needs additional isolation, and new radiators.

This is not quite correct.

The first decision to phase-out nuclear was made around the year 2000 [1]. Its initial date for the shutdown of the last nuclear reactor was set to be 2022. The plan was agreed upon by the owners of these plans.

Around 2010, this first decision was taken back, and a few months later, Fukushima happened. This led to the second decision to phase-out nuclear.

Only then, eight of 17 reactors were turned off quickly. But this had no major impact, because the switch to renewables was already under way for ten years.

Compare Germany's coal consumption after Fukushima with Japan's, and you'll noticed the difference.