CO2 extraction from the atmosphere is vital says study

Researchers at Columbia University’s Earth Institute are pressing for more research into capturing carbon dioxide from the air in their latest paper. Though the costs are likely to be high, the technology could become cheaper as it becomes mainstream.

Pulling carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it could be essential in the future as the concentrations in the atmosphere may have already reached a point where stabilising emissions is not enough.

Klaus Lackner who was lead author on the research says, "The field of carbon sequestration, the field of capture and storage as a community is too timid when it comes to new ideas. You cannot rule out new technology simply because the current implementation is too expensive."

Currently, the focus is on sequestering CO2 from man made emissions, such as coal power plants and manufacturing plants, but this only addresses part of the problem, and does not even consider the emissions from smaller sources, such as cars and airplanes.

The authors conclude that, "Stabilizing atmospheric CO2 will require drastic emissions reductions. Carbon-free renewable and nuclear energy resources are theoretically sufficient for humankind's energy needs, especially if combined with significant increases in energy efficiency. It is unclear, however, whether these resources can be deployed rapidly and widely enough and overcome socio-political obstacles related to cost, environmental impacts, and public acceptance."

Whilst carbon capture could theoretically help stabilize the atmosphere, even low levels of emissions could cause an increase in atmospheric CO2, simply because of the long period of time the gas remains in the atmosphere (a time scale of hundreds of years).

There are plenty of difficulties to overcome in capturing carbon in the air however. Unlike exhaust from a factory, the air’s carbon dioxide is extremely diffuse, making any significant extraction difficult. The energy required to extract the gas could be great, and the cost unimaginable.

It is some thing we have to consider the authors stress, "In a way, it's too late to argue that we shouldn't consider [such] solutions. The concern that this kind of technology would give us an excuse not to do anything [to reduce carbon emissions] is wrong, because we're too late for that," says Lackner. "We have to push very hard right now, and we have to have every means at our disposal to solve this problem."

The cost doesn’t concern the authors either, despite research from other scientists saying otherwise. "Demanding an assurance of economic viability at the outset stifles innovation, favours incrementalism and keeps game-changing ideas from consideration. The challenge seems large but no larger than the corresponding challenges in other climate mitigation technologies," they say.

There are a few companies making initial research in the field, but it is likely to be some time for we see anything on the scale necessary to make a dent in the rising levels of atmospheric CO2.