Blog

The product of 7th in a series of conversations between me and my AI powered self.

In an era of rapid technological advancement and shifting geopolitical dynamics, the future of humanity seems poised for transformation. Central to this vision is the inevitability of evolution, both on a personal and societal level. At its core, evolution stems from people gaining better tools—technologies that drive progress and provide solutions to our greatest challenges. This is where renewable energy, artificial intelligence, mRNA, and other emerging technologies converge to create a brighter future for all.

The Role of Leadership and Global Economic Change

As the world grapples with shifting power dynamics, particularly in energy production and policy, it’s important to follow the money. A key example is the United States, where renewable energy has increasingly outpaced fossil fuels, both in investment and output. This marks a significant shift toward electrification, creating bidirectional energy systems that can move power both ways, provided the right infrastructure is in place. Central to this shift are microgrids and energy trading, which allow individuals to play an active role in their energy systems—especially through time-of-use arbitrage.

The future is one where individuals can profit from these systems, enabling them to contribute to the greater good keeping their neighbors’ homes warm and providing essential services. This transformation also comes with a deeper sense of community and cooperation, where peace and collaboration become more profitable than conflict. The influence of oligarchs and traditional power structures will have to adapt, but they too will find ways to align with this new reality. These changes are not about revolution but about evolution fostering ecologies that are profitable for all stakeholders and celebrate national heritage while pushing society forward in a more egalitarian direction.

Optimism in the Face of Challenges

At the heart of this vision is an optimistic belief that if there is a problem with leadership, society, once informed, will come out stronger than it went in. This aligns with the broader belief that people, when equipped with the right tools and knowledge, always do the best they can. While politics may make noise along the way, the forces of evolution, driven by technology, human ingenuity and desire for an ever-better life, will ultimately guide humanity toward a more just, peaceful, and prosperous future.

If the President—or any leader—tries to rework world economies, the path to success will not be immediate. It could take years for the global economy to stabilize and build confidence in the new systems. However, evolution, with its inherent process of adaptation, ensures that humanity will emerge stronger, even if the journey is challenging. On the other hand, if the efforts to reshape the economy are unsuccessful, the stabilization period could be shorter, but more volatile, as markets and people react to and correct, ineffective policies.

A Future of Purpose and Prosperity

Ultimately, the best thing individuals can do in this rapidly changing world is to focus on being happy, safe, and leaving more than they came with. Over a lifetime, the impact one can make—whether through raising a family, mentoring others, or contributing to a more sustainable and peaceful world—is inevitable. With 80 years of life, it’s now hard not to leave a positive mark, even if it’s in small, everyday ways. This philosophy reflects a profound truth: humans are naturally inclined to adapt, improve, and leave a better world for future generations.

The future is undeniably bright. As technology converges and societies evolve, people will be housed, fed, and purposefully employed. The drive toward progress, led by renewable energy and the convergence of advanced technologies, will create an equitable world. Political noise will fade, and evolution will steer us toward a harmonious, prosperous future where the well-being of the planet and its people takes precedence. In the end, everything will work together, and everything will be fine.

Throughout history, human progress has often surged forward the moment a breakthrough technology becomes available. The printing press, electricity, and the internet all transformed society almost as soon as they arrived—and today, artificial intelligence and renewable energy stand poised to do the same.

Humans seem to thrive on the best that technology offers immediately after its advent. In our modern era, AI is a prime example. It enables a kind of conversation with an amplified version of ourselves—a version that draws on vast reservoirs of global knowledge, rapidly updating our understanding and enhancing our decision-making. AI gives us the ability to engage with our own ideas in a way that refines them, making us better informed and more capable than we were before.

At the same time, renewable energy technologies such as solar and wind power are rapidly maturing. No longer relegated to a niche market, these energy sources are becoming cost‐competitive, decentralized, and increasingly reliable. With renewables, energy independence is no longer just a lofty political aspiration but a technological reality. When energy is generated locally from abundant, clean sources, the need for global competition over scarce fossil fuels diminishes. This shift could reduce the geopolitical tensions that have, for decades, driven massive military expenditures and conflicts over energy resources.

Some argue that technology itself—more than politics—determines what is possible. Indeed, technological evolution is an unstoppable force. As renewable energy reduces the grip of fossil fuels on national security, and as AI enhances every facet of economic and social decision-making, we may witness a profound transformation. When nations no longer compete aggressively over energy supplies, military budgets may contract, freeing up resources to address social needs like housing, healthcare, and education.

This convergence of technologies fosters an environment where peace and prosperity become not only possible but perhaps inevitable. The reliable, low-cost energy provided by renewables, coupled with AI’s capacity to streamline systems and democratize knowledge, can drive economic growth, reduce income disparities, and create opportunities that were once unimaginable. The historical pattern is clear: each technological leap has brought us closer to realizing the best of what human society can achieve.

Optimism, then, is not merely wishful thinking—it is grounded in historical precedent and in the tangible benefits of these emerging technologies. Although politics, policy choices, and social structures still play crucial roles, the sheer momentum of technological evolution sets a powerful trajectory toward a more equitable, sustainable, and peaceful world.

In short, as we harness the twin engines of renewable energy and artificial intelligence, we are not only addressing immediate environmental and economic challenges but also laying the foundation for a future where human prosperity and global peace are natural byproducts of progress. This is an argument for optimism: by embracing and investing in these transformative technologies, we move closer to a world where our collective potential is truly unleashed.

Jasey Chanders is my mentee at CU Boulder. I am proud to share her study on the Public Perception of Technological Carbon Capture with the Decarbonization Innovation & Arts Network

Richard Polk Curator

Public Perception of Technological Carbon Capture Jasey Chanders,1 University of Colorado Boulder, USA

Abstract: As climate change worsens and we struggle to reduce our global emissions to levels that will slow down global temperature rise, the concept of pulling carbon directly out of the atmosphere is gaining traction. While development of potential technology began in the 1970s (IEAGHG. n.d), the concept of Direct Air Capture (DAC) of carbon is relatively recent with many start-ups being created in just the last few years (Merchant 2022). Partially due to the relative newness of this technology including that all implementations of this technology are still at pilot stages (“Direct Air Capture – Analysis” 2021.), opinions on this technology vary widely. Additionally, this study found that the concerns and hopes of the public and experts in the field only somewhat converge leading to an interesting challenge in communication to the public about DAC. This study aims to categorize these opinions and call attention to a few key areas where little research has been done through an analysis of comments on LinkedIn and Youtube.

Keywords: Carbon Capture, Direct Air Capture, Public Perception, Public Opinion

Introduction to Carbon Capture

arbon capture is the process of removing carbon dioxide (hereafter carbon) from the atmosphere (Lebling et al. 2021). Carbon capture is not an entirely new concept but has been gaining the public’s attention in recent years (Lebling et al. 2021). According to the International Panel on Climate Change’s  “Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change”, carbon capture is no longer avoidable if we are to keep global temperature rise below 1.5 degrees C. The first form of carbon capture has existed for millennia: plants. Plants are part of the natural carbon cycle of the earth (“The Carbon Cycle” 2011) and are a commonly believed solution to Climate Change. In addition, many technological solutions for carbon capture draw inspiration from natural processes (Institute 2018). However, there is debate over whether planting and preserving trees and other plant life falls short of capturing the levels of carbon the human race is emitting (“Why Planting Tons of Trees Isn’t Enough to Solve Climate Change” 2021). In addition, plant life does not last forever and releases much of the captured carbon after it dies (“The Carbon Cycle” 2011). Development of technological solutions began in the 1970s, however this early technology was developed by the oil industry to enhance oil recovery by pumping the captured carbon into depleted wells (IEAGHG. n.d). This process used the high concentration of carbon in smoke stacks but in recent years the technology has been adapted to help solve our climate issues and now has been modified to take carbon directly out of the air (“Direct Air Capture – Analysis” 2021.). There are currently 19 DAC companies but only a few test facilities in existence (“Direct Air Capture – Analysis” 2021.). Larger scale facilities are in various stages of development as well as many nature based potential solutions (“Direct Air Capture – Analysis” 2021.).

Methods

This study broke into two parts: public opinion and expert opinion. The goal of the ‘public opinion’ section of this study was to analyze the most accessible opinions of the segment of the public that is engaging in the carbon capture conversation. Public opinion was gathered from three YouTube videos on carbon capture titled: “7 Ways To Pull Carbon From The Atmosphere”, “The Truth about Capturing CO2 to Reverse Climate Change” and “Money Is Pouring Into Carbon Capture Tech, But Challenges Remain,” and three LinkedIn posts on the same subject titled: “An Excellent Read on the European #carbonremoval Policy Landscape,” “Climate Experts Say Vacuuming CO2 From the Sky is a Costly Boondoggle,”  and “Direct Air Carbon Capture Requires Almost as Much Energy as Burning Fossil Fuel”. Videos and posts were chosen for their relevance as well as the relevance of their comment threads. Four sources were educational in nature and 2 were opinion pieces. All sources were published between 2020 and 2022. 121 comments were gathered from these sources based on their relevance and the order listed on the site. Comments were rejected from this study if they did not fit into the category of opinions on carbon capture but were not rejected for ‘correctness/accuracy’ of their opinion. Comments were then analyzed and categorized into general trends.

Expert opinion was gathered from an expert elicitation survey titled: “Future Prospects of Direct Air Capture Technologies: Insights From an Expert Elicitation Survey,” analyzing the slides and transcribing a webinar by the European consulting company AFRY titled: “Carbon Removal for a Net Zero World,” and the article “Direct Air Capture: Resource Considerations and Costs for Carbon Removal,” from the World Resources Institute. Opinions were then categorized into general themes. In addition, expert opinions on background information not directly relating to DAC were gathered through a literature review.

Important note: This is not a comprehensive survey and necessarily representative of the population.

Results

Public Concerns of carbon capture fell roughly into 11 categories. See figure 1

Figure 1: Public Concerns on Carbon Capture by Number of Comments

Source: Chanders

A selection of quotes from comments in the above categories selected for relevance:

Distraction from Decarbonization:

“The problem with CCS is that many might think of it as a get out of jail free card or a “no regret – all you can eat diet pill”.” (Comment from Ulrich Suter, Undecided with Matt Ferrell 2020)

“Direct air capture technology is not only a waste of money and energy, it is a dangerous distraction FROM decarbonization. It’s the fossil fuel industry selling you on the notion that you don’t need to worry- burn baby burn!- because somebody will come along later with a giant vacuum cleaner to suck up your sins from the atmosphere. It’s worse than merely being ahead of its appropriate time by many decades- it’s much more nefarious than that.” (Paul Martin 2022 comment on “An Excellent Read on the European #carbonremoval Policy Landscape,” 2022.)

Preferred Planting Trees:

“There is a very cheap direct from air carbon dioxide capture technique – it’s called “photosynthesis” and operates in green plants known as “trees”” (Micky Allen comment on “Direct Air Carbon Capture Requires Almost as Much Energy as Burning Fossil Fuel,” 2021.)

Expense/Profitability:

“Carbon capture- in general- is costly and inappropriate” (Maxime Katgely 2022 comment on “Climate Experts Say Vacuuming CO2 From the Sky is a Costly Boondoggle.” 2022.)

Other Methods Would be Better

“Can the captured CO2 be used to make batteries? Also, the captured CO2 can be used to make cement less atmospherically toxic.” (Ezio Cutarelli comment on CNBC, 2021)

Comments in the ‘Other Methods Would be Better’ category included proposed methods involving water, wax, alge, nuclear, cover crops, purely emissions reductions, biochar and whales.

Oil Industry Scheme:

“They are making money from it. Anything to do with carbon is just to be able to ask for the money! This is the new industry. Money from “climate saving innovation”.” (Paul Davies 2022 comment on “An Excellent Read on the European #carbonremoval Policy Landscape,” 2022.)

Depriving Trees of Carbon:

“This whole co2 blame for global warming is pure politics and has nothing to do with science. Now tell me what the plants think of you taking away the gas that keeps them alive?” (Leo Jones comment on CNBC 2021)

Energy Consumption:

“Unfortunately it takes energy to do it that is what the money is for… money is energy” (timeWaster76 comment on Undecided with Matt Ferrell 2020)

Durability of Storage:

“it sounds to me like selling the captured carbon will just release it into the atmosphere again. it has to be put underground, or at least sold only to companies that won’t cause it to be released into the atmosphere again.” (Arthur comment on CNBC 2021)

Storage Safety:

“Wouldn’t carbonating the ground water make it acidic? Anyone see a problem with this?” (Abstract Idea comment on CNBC 2021)

Denied Carbon Relating to Climate Change

“The current and near future CO2 levels aren’t “unhealthy” in fact it is opposite. Study prehistoric CO2 levels there were many periods had higher CO2 levels and amazing animal and plant growth for example the Devonian and Carboniferous periods.” (Dag_of_the_West comment on CNBC, 2021)

Public Hopes for carbon capture fall roughly into 7 categories. See figure 2

Figure 2: Public Aspirations for Carbon Capture by Number of Comments

Source: Chanders

A selection of quotes from comments in the above categories selected for relevance:

Mechanical Carbon Capture will be more effective than Natural Carbon Capture:

Nature never evolved with the efficiency of carbon capture and storage in mind. That has never been a task life has truly concerned itself with before now, and as such even the most rudimentary of human techniques easily beats out nature’s best alternatives. (96ace96 comment on CNBC 2021)

Is a Piece of the Solution:

“The general efficency of sunlight to useful energy in plants is generously considered about 1%, wereas solar panels are pushing towards 20% or more. Plants’ ability to store carbon long-term is practically non-existent unless they get compressed into the earth/beneath the ocean and turned into coal/oil over litteral millenia. We don’t have that kind of time.” (96ace96 comment on CNBC 2021)

Can be made Profitable:

“If we put these inside fossil fuel power plants, those companies can convert their carbon biproduct into a source of revenue” (Billious comment on CNBC 2021)

Captured Carbon can be used for Products:

Is it possible to combine carbon capture and vertical farming to increase crop yield? (Skelleton Man comment on CNBC 2021)

Comments in the ‘Captured Carbon can be used for Products’ category mentioned repurposing captured carbon as carbon neutral fuels, batteries, other products and integrated into AC units.

Expert Concerns and Hopes for DAC

5 main areas of expert concern relating to DAC were noted: durability of storage, energy use, cost, scalability, and lack of policy support.

Durability of storage: This is a measure of how long the captured carbon stays out of the earth’s carbon cycle.“Durability of storage being a key issue for some technologies”. (Brown, Lonsdale, and Woodhouse, 2022.)

Energy Use: DAC technologies differ in energy consumption but many require being  heated to upwards of 1600 degrees F to collect the carbon they have captured. This can be quite energy intensive. (Lebling et al. 2021) Experts predict that the energy needed will be reduced to 4-8 GJ/tonCO2 by 2050. (Shayegh, Bosetti, and Tavoni 2021)

Cost: Current cost estimates for DAC range from $200-$600/ton compared to 50/ton for some nature based solutions. (Lebling et al. 2021) Experts predict in a best case scenario we will get down to $200 per T by 2050 “costs for DAC could fall to around $150-$200 per tonne over the next 5-10 years”. (Shayegh, Bosetti, and Tavoni 2021)

Scalability: One of the largest capture plants in operation captures 4000 ton/year which is 0.000004% of a gigaton. (“Direct Air Capture – Analysis” 2021.) According to (“Mind the Gap: How Carbon Dioxide Removals Must Complement Deep Decarbonisation to Keep 1.5°C Alive” 2022.) we need to capture “at least 70 to 220 [gigatons] of carbon removals between now and 2050 to limit cumulative net emissions.”  Consulting company AFRY (Brown, Lonsdale, and Woodhouse, 2022.)  predicts we need 1.4 gigatons/year of capture capacity by 2030, though they believe 1 gigaton can be achieved with nature based solutions. Experts believe “that DAC could contribute to reaching the 2°C climate target by removing several [gigatons] CO2 by mid century”. (Shayegh, Bosetti, and Tavoni 2021)

Lack of policy support: Climate policy is being put in place but not at a rate that is fast enough according to experts in this field. “Half of the experts indicated lack of supporting policy as a major obstacle in developing DAC projects”. (Shayegh, Bosetti, and Tavoni 2021)

Discussion

Public opinion breaks roughly into three overarching trends: misconceptions/unrealistic expectations, concerns/hopes that align with expert opinions, and ethical/political questions.

Beginning with inaccurate concerns and unrealistic expectations, commenters expressed a strong preference for ‘just planting trees’ even though there is debate whether it is actually an effective strategy. (“Why Planting Tons of Trees Isn’t Enough to Solve Climate Change” 2021) Some viewers also were concerned that pulling carbon out of the atmosphere would starve the trees. Additionally there were a few comments denying carbon is causing climate change. Many of the other hopes and concerns such as turning carbon into batteries, capturing carbon with wax or integrating the technology into AC units are potential possibilities, however they fall into this category because they are fundamentally different from what DAC is intended to achieve and theoretically capable of achieving. These comments align with a study done by (Wolske et al. 2019), showing people have a strong preference for natural sounding solutions, such as ‘mechanical trees,’ kelp forests or others that draw on language traditionally used when referring to nature, as they seem less threatening.

Expert and public opinions do align in some areas, specifically when it comes to technical challenges and potential to solve our carbon problem. This is where most research on DAC is currently being developed. There are several main issues to be addressed: cost, durability of storage, safety of storage, scalability and energy use (Brown, Lonsdale, and Woodhouse, 2022.). These categories tend to be less concerning to the public because they know fewer specifics of the technology. Currently costs of DAC are ranging upwards to $600/ton (“Direct Air Capture – Analysis” 2021.) while according to a recent paper “at least 70 to 220 [gigatons] of carbon removals between now and 2050 to limit cumulative net emissions”. (“Mind the Gap: How Carbon Dioxide Removals Must Complement Deep Decarbonisation to Keep 1.5°C Alive” 2022.) Experts are hoping to get costs down to $100-$200/ton (Shayegh, Bosetti, and Tavoni 2021) but cost is still a large limiting factor. Durability is also of great importance, once the carbon has been removed from the atmosphere what is done with it determines the long term impact. There needs to be a way to pay for the extensive costs, so the few companies in existence largely sell their carbon which does not always result in the carbon being permanently stored. (“Direct Air Capture Companies: Similarities & Differences” 2021) One of the current solutions for long term storage is to pump the carbon deep underground where it mineralizes, but there have been safety concerns about carbon leaking into water sources (Newmark, Friedmann, and Carroll 2010). This is something that gets quick public attention regardless of the true risk factor. The next major challenge, and a large part of the cost, is energy use. Because carbon is not very dense in the atmosphere, 412.5 parts per million (Laboratory 2019.), a large quantity of air must be moved to capture 1 ton of carbon. The current most common processes rely on heating solvents or sorbents to high temperatures to release the captured carbon which is also energy intensive. (Lebling et al. 2021) The final major technical issue is scalability. The largest current plant processes 4000 ton/year (“Direct Air Capture – Analysis” 2021.) which is small in comparison to the gigitons that need to be removed (Brown, Lonsdale, and Woodhouse, 2022.). Experts do not believe these challenges are insurmountable (Shayegh, Bosetti, and Tavoni 2021) but these issues need to be addressed and communicated to the public.

While the above categories are critical, they are already part of the conversation between experts and the public. However commenters also brought up several ethical/political concerns which are mostly neglected in the public-expert conversation. These comments largely are concerned with carbon capture distracting from other progress to reduce emissions or being an easy out. Many comments related to concerns that this was a scheme by the oil industry to distract us and allow the continuation of burning fossil fuels. Others worry that if we put resources, time and hope into carbon capture we will not put as much into actually solving the problem or that it will become a get out free card for polluters because they can just pay someone to clean up their mess. These concerns reveal a deep disconnect between the public’s views on carbon capture and what the experts are communicating about it. In addition to the comments collected, nearly every article in the literature review mentioned at least one of these opinions as a ‘some people are worried about…’ but no data or formal studies were cited. Granted these questions likely do not have definitive answers however clearly the public has a stake in their conclusions. By nature these questions are undermining to the technology and have the potential to divide those working towards the same end goal. As the technological research of DAC proceeds, the author argues it will be critical to invest research into these questions. Even more critically this research must be communicated to the public so those who wish to be involved in the conversation have the ability to  pass their judgment on the technology not from simply a place of wispy possibilities but from models, data qualified opinions and predictions.

As innovation continues and climate efforts edge further into the global conversation DAC will likely continue to garner attention. Yet with so many unanswered questions it is likely to further divide the population which is fundamentally working towards the same goal. Whether it comes in the form of misunderstandings, physical setbacks, or concerns over protization of resources and influence of oil giants these questions will only cause harm unless answered.

References

“An Excellent Read on the European #carbonremoval Policy Landscape.” 2022. https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6903044959331844096/.

Brown, Mostyn, Jack Lonsdale, and Stephen Woodhouse. 2022. “Carbon Removal for a Net Zero World,” 26.

https://afry.com/sites/default/files/2022-01/afry_carbonremovals_netzero_v100.pdf

“Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change.” 2022. Accessed April 11, 2022. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/.

“Climate Experts Say Vacuuming CO2 From the Sky is a Costly Boondoggle.” 2022. https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6872446931109457920/.

CNBC. 2021. Money Is Pouring Into Carbon Capture Tech, But Challenges Remain. https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=cxVFopLpIQY.

“Direct Air Capture – Analysis.” 2021. IEA. Accessed March 17, 2022. https://www.iea.org/reports/direct-air-capture.

“Direct Air Capture Companies: Similarities & Differences.” 2021. The Climate Connection (blog). June 4, 2021. https://theclimateconnection.org/direct-air-capture-companies-similarities-differences/.

“Direct Air Carbon Capture Requires Almost as Much Energy as Burning Fossil Fuel.” 2021. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/janrosenow_the-amount-of-energy-required-by-direct-activity-6843814305293459456-Av26.

IEAGHG. n.d. “A Brief History of CCS and Current Status,” 1. Accessed 2022

https://ieaghg.org/docs/General_Docs/Publications/Information_Sheets_for_CCS_2.pdf

Institute, Biomimicry. 2018. “These Entrepreneurs Are Looking to Nature to Develop Innovations That Give More than They Take.” Biomimicry Institute. October 15, 2018. https://biomimicry.org/planting-trees-capturing-carbon-cleaning-the-air-these-innovators-are-looking-to-nature-to-develop-innovations-that-give-more-than-they-take/.

Joe Scott. 2021. 7 Ways To Pull Carbon From The Atmosphere | Random Thursday. https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=2J05vC3umE0.

Laboratory, Sizing Up Humanity’s Impacts on Earth’s Changing Atmosphere : A. Five-Part Series By Alan Buis, NASA’s Jet Propulsion. 2019. “The Atmosphere: Getting a Handle on Carbon Dioxide.” Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. Accessed April 15, 2022. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide.

Lebling, Katie, Noah McQueen, Max Pisciotta, and Jennifer Wilcox. 2021. “Direct Air Capture: Resource Considerations and Costs for Carbon Removal,” January. https://www.wri.org/insights/direct-air-capture-resource-considerations-and-costs-carbon-removal.

Merchant, Na’im. 2022. “8 Unique Direct Air Capture Companies to Watch in 2022.” Substack newsletter. The Carbon Curve (blog). January 12, 2022. https://carboncurve.substack.com/p/8-unique-direct-air-capture-companies.

“Mind the Gap: How Carbon Dioxide Removals Must Complement Deep Decarbonisation to Keep 1.5°C Alive.” 2022. Energy Transitions Commission (blog). Accessed April 6, 2022. https://www.energy-transitions.org/publications/mind-the-gap-cdr/.

Newmark, Robin L., Samuel J. Friedmann, and Susan A. Carroll. 2010. “Water Challenges for Geologic Carbon Capture and Sequestration.” Environmental Management 45 (4): 651–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9434-1.

Shayegh, Soheil, Valentina Bosetti, and Massimo Tavoni. 2021. “Future Prospects of Direct Air Capture Technologies: Insights From an Expert Elicitation Survey.” Frontiers in Climate 3. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fclim.2021.630893.

Tcvetkov, Pavel, Alexey Cherepovitsyn, and Sergey Fedoseev. 2019. “Public Perception of Carbon Capture and Storage: A State-of-the-Art Overview.” Heliyon 5 (12): e02845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02845.

“The Carbon Cycle.” 2011. Text.Article. NASA Earth Observatory. June 16, 2011. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle.

Undecided with Matt Ferrell. 2020. The Truth about Capturing CO2 to Reverse Climate Change. https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=PraDOusY87g.

“Why Planting Tons of Trees Isn’t Enough to Solve Climate Change.” 2021. Science News (blog). July 9, 2021. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/planting-trees-climate-change-carbon-capture-deforestation.

Wolske, Kimberly S., Kaitlin T. Raimi, Victoria Campbell-Arvai, and P. Sol Hart. 2019. “Public Support for Carbon Dioxide Removal Strategies: The Role of Tampering with Nature Perceptions.” Climatic Change 152 (3–4): 345–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02375-z.

Forecast and Warnings About the 2020s Decade of Disruption Followed by Abundance for Climate Crisis Survivors

Richard Polk Curator Decarbonization, Innovation, and Arts Network

Please open the LINKS they are an important part of the message and provide authority

“Whether it is to be Utopia or Oblivion it will be a touch-and-go relay race right up to the final moment… Humanity is in a final exam as to whether or not it qualifies for continuance in the Universe.” – R. Buckminster Fuller, Utopia or Oblivion, 1969

Here is the 2021 argument forUtopia. Utopia may seem far fetched given our world is still plagued by poverty, disease, racism, and increasing environmental devastation. Crises like what is happening in Afghanistan ultimately feel like a regression. We have seen schoolyards become war zones, watched racism and intolerance take lives, and have ached at the division that afflicts our populations. Climate change has already claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, in floods, fires, and storms. We feel brokenhearted about today, fearful of uncertain tomorrows.

Although we may be distraught over the challenges society faces today, unforeseen peace and prosperity are only a couple of decades away.

The 2020s and 2030s will bring technology innovations and convergences propelling us into sustainability, stability, and abundance for the many.

To see the future, we must see clearly the facts about the present.Much of the world is already getting better. In the last 20 years, extreme poverty across the globe has halved, more girls are being educated as detailed by Hans Rosling, and low carbon transitions are accelerating. Most excitingly, we currently sit at a nexus of global social tension and technological disruption

First, however, our climate crisis will get worse before it gets better. The ‘problem’ is life is improving for the billion people not yet enjoying electrification in the world faster than we can put renewables into service. An example is China, which has produced and put more renewables into service around the world than any other country, but still has to burn more coal to keep up with their growing demand for energy. The realization that the fossil fuel logistic and environmental burden is becoming history as we approach a tipping point when renewable energy generation is greater than demand – a defining event during the 2020s disruptions.

Economics, not politics or religion, will drive this Age of Abundance. The originalist goals of democracy will finally be realized with biometric block chain voting from smartphones and computers with cameras. Efficiency, not revolution e.g., updating our archaic governmental procedures like timing requirements determined by the number of days it took to ride a horse from one place to another in early America. With today’s technology, democracy and voting can finally be aligned with the state or federal governing laws, setting us free from today’s unintended divisiveness.

Greed and survival have long dominated decision-making in our power structures. We have had to rely on strongman governance and fossil fuels. While both were essential for survival and growth in the past, their usefulness has now become antiquated.

By the 2030s, the future will look much more promising.

What people truly desire is dignity, good health, shelter, purposeful work, and a meaningful life. These needs and aspirationscan and should be met for every human. Solutions are nearing, due almost exclusively to economics. Meeting clean electricity goals is now within reach. According to RMI, “Wind and solar are now the least expensive forms of generation we can build in most of the country, and we know how to integrate them seamlessly into the grid.” Taking care of our planet means taking care of our people.

Competition is drivingEV battery prices down as the technology improves and manufacturing volumes increase. Green Hydrogenand Ammonia will become preferred energy carriers as their price decline accelerates. The less expensive, carbon-free energy being used to manufacture these products are freeing us from relying on carbon and other pollution distributing Natural Gas (NG) and Liquid Natural Gas (LNG).

The next 15 years will bring numerous convergences, already in process today. As are detailed in Rethinking Climate Change.

Accelerated social and technological change emerged from the recent pandemic. Significant disruptions in regenerative agriculture, reimagined education, sustainable housing systems, public health, and automation materials, are occurring in sync with the energy transition. The future has the capacity for more renewable energy than the world needs, sustainable housing for all, EV batteries set free to arbitrage, with energy trading between microgrids rich with distributed generation, seeding economies far too busy for wars, with cheap, sometimes free energy.

For the first time, life will be great for the many, not just a fortunate few.

Today’s extensive global economies, mass overproduction, and impressive technological advances usher in an abundant era of life, focused on people rather than products. We will win the war on climate change, perhaps the last war ever to be fought. There will be suffering and death from floods, intolerable temperatures, and food supply disruption. In America and the world after fossil fuels, kindness rather than indifference or anger will be economically rewarding. For instance, the Denver Post reports that annual per-person spending on homelessness is twice the cost of a 1-bedroom apartment. Providing housing for people experiencing homelessness is more economic than not providing them housing, and improves the quality of life for the fortunate almost as much as the people living in it. Sustainable alternatives in all sectors are available and will be among the most loved centerpieces of The Age of Abundance.

The Covid -19 pandemic teaches us that healthcare access, including vaccines, is essential. Telemedicine with AI triage can bring healthcare to all. This decade of disruptions will bring us a better life, abundance beyond the privileged and lucky few. Our climate change influenced transitions will clear the smoke and bring cleaner air, fromcleaner fuels and industrial processes. However, rising sea levels and shoreline changes may be permanent, demanding relocation and rebuilding of some of the built environment. Families suffering from too much heat, flooding or other crises shouldn’t believe the most recent event they survived was the worst that will happen. Keeping safe may even mean relocation. Some families may need to relocate ASAP to be healthy and happy enjoying the Age of Abundance in fifteen years, according to ProPublica’s New Climate Mappredictions for North America.

When we survive climate change, making the best choices available, the resulting Age of Abundance will include surprises as wondrous as the weapons industry following tobacco and fossil fuels into the history books.

We will enjoy truth, happiness, and accountability in the Age of Abundance. Within 20 years the quantum speed of multiple disruptions will power peace and prosperity.

Make the “my next car will be an EV” pledge

https://www.worldevday.org/ev-pledge?dfb29beb_page=7

Until then fund important reforestation and other green projects around the world with cost-free participation in our UCapture carbon offset program.

https://www.ucapture.com/pedestrian

Over a decade after the Pedestrian Shops became the world’s first solar-powered shoe stores, we’ve now become the first shoe stores to sell shoes without a carbon footprint.

Thanks to our new partnership with green-tech platform, UCapture, when you buy a pair of shoes you can instantly offset 100 lbs. of CO2 from a verified carbon offset project. This will eliminate the carbon footprint of your purchase, at no extra cost, reducing the environmental impact of your new Pedestrian Shops shoes.

To take part, visit www.ucapture.com/Pedestrian. Then add UCapture’s browser extension to your laptop or desktop computer. It’s that easy!

UCapture’s browser extension offsets your carbon footprint, for free, when you shop with 25,000+ online stores. It also automatically applies the best coupon code available so you can save money while you help save the planet.

Not only does UCapture work with big online retailers, but they’ve also made carbon offsetting an option for smaller businesses like the Pedestrian Shops. The technology company is expanding their business model to retail locations too – with Pedestrian Shops being their first independent shoe store.

For more details about UCapture, or to get started on your own journey to going carbon neutral, visit www.ucapture.com/Pedestrian

Over a decade after the Pedestrian Shops became the world’s first solar-powered shoe stores, now we have become the first shoe stores to sell shoes without a carbon footprint. When you buy a pair of shoes and join UCapture, for free, 100 lbs. of CO2 from a verified carbon offset project will instantly offset your purchase, reducing the environmental impact of your new Pedestrian Shops shoes.

Carbon Offsets are a powerful tool to fund emission reduction projects that result in tangible decarbonization changes. One example is Lyft, https://3degreesinc.com/latest/lyft-combats-climate-change-with-every-ride/

UCapture has now made offsetting an option for smaller businesses like the Pedestrian Shops. UCapture is a browser extension that offsets your carbon footprint, for free, when you shop with 25,000+ online stores. It also automatically applies the best coupon code available so you can save money while you help save the planet.

For details about UCapture and the offset programs your purchase can support, visit comfortableshoes.com 

Hello, I’m Richard Polk. This is the story of my 60-year interest in solar energy and resiliency. In the fifth grade, my interest turned to solar energy because I couldn’t find any interesting books on robots in my elementary school library.

By eighth grade I had developed what turned out to be a lifelong fascination with solar. I received a First Place for my junior high school solar energy science project, attached.

The biggest solar epiphany moment for me was in January 1963, when my new friend George Mathews, a county commissioner and peanut farmer in Americus, Georgia, explained to me, without using the word resiliency, what he thought about when he made the world’s first solar-powered phone call on October 4, 1955.

Mr. Mathews said how important it was that rural areas with unreliable electrical service, where he had family, could now look forward to the comfort and safety of a better connection to the world. The related images attached below from my science project’s report brought me close to the very beginning of solar energy.

In 2006, as a member of the City Council in Boulder, Colorado, I helped write and approve Boulder’s first Climate Action Plan. PDF:Boulder’s 2006 Climate Action Plan – City of Boulder . We’ve come a long way in 13 years. While the plan discusses how much corn we can put in our gasoline, it doesn’t even contemplate the successes we’ve achieved with electric vehicles, and even more recently with hydrogen fuel cells. Later in 2006, I proposed the City of Boulder’s revolutionary Solar Rebate Ordinance — see Boulder Solar Ordinance attached below.

On page 5 of the 2011 Climate Action Plan executive summary, I am pictured in front of my family’s Pedestrian Shops shoe store https://wwwstatic.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/2010-2011-community-guide-to-boulders-climate-action-plan-1-201305081156.pdf . In 2016 Boulder received a “SolSmart Gold” Award for Advancing Solar Energy Growth, including offering grants for solar panels on nonprofit organizations’ buildings that I proposed. https://bouldercolorado.gov/newsroom/sept-23-2016-boulder-receives-solsmart-gold-award-for-advancing-solar-energy-growth

In 2008, our Pedestrian Shops comfortable shoes / walking shoes store in downtown Boulder became the world’s first solar powered shoe store. https://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/03/prweb795314.htm http://footwearplusmagazine.com/2011/04/news/shoesday-tuesdays-eco-efforts-lead-to-green-for-pedestrian-shops/

I continue to serve on the Boulder Solar grant committee, the only member who also serves on the Xcel Energy Renewable Energy Trust’s seven-member RET advisory panel. While serving on the RET, I have been able to help bring a variety of renewable energy features to Boulder County, such as a wind turbine at Thorne Ecological Center and a photovoltaic array to the rooftop of The Dairy Arts Center, where I served on the board for almost 20 years.

Carbon Eraser (CE) is an idea for a “born in Boulder” Colorado suite of decarbonization enterprises that provide a carbon-free alternative to activities that now add carbon to our air. These ventures can be coordinated with each other or they can stand alone. Together they create a metaphorical shade of green and an energy ecology that is both economically rewarding and environmentally sustainable. CE is good for communities like Boulder, Colorado, for the environment, for partners like the University of Colorado and Xcel Energy, and for the power grid.

Why you may want to offer Carbon Eraser advice or be our partner

Decarbonization is the world’s ultimate asset utilization opportunity, providing a profitable path to a carbon-clean future because it allows energy providers, regardless of private or public ownership, a better profit margin with beneficial social and environmental impacts. The following illustrates relationships in a Carbon Eraser energy ecology:

1. CE Solar Roof and Garden Plan.

Every new building in Boulder, with a few exceptions, would be required to have the largest PUC/Xcel-allowed photovoltaic system sized at this time to 120 percent of its estimated energy use, or to participate (as regulations allow) in a solar garden.

Solar gardens will be located in several locations that, to the extent possible, are evenly distributed throughout Boulder. In the last few years several solar gardens were built in Colorado with an average size of 10 acres. However, to date, none have been built in Boulder, despite the many promising sites available. Total annual carbon-free energy production resulting from the CE Solar Roof and Garden Plan would quickly reach hundreds of megawatt hours of installed capacity.

Carbon Eraser Solar Garden partnerships among businesses, institutions, and communities facilitate both economic and environmental sustainability by guaranteeing the debt service.

As explained further below, Solar Gardens are good for energy providers. Even developer challenges of the transition from private to public electric distribution, known as “municipalization,” i.e. ownership of the poles and wires, during a period of possible change of system ownership, can be easily mitigated. There are historic examples where publicly owned power has been great for American communities. Boulder’s effort to municipalize is a study that will determine if municipalization debt can be sustainably serviced or our energy’s carbon content can be further reduced in an environment where energy companies are aggressively decarbonizing, as opposed to adding coal capacity as was the case when Boulder’s effort to municipalize began.

Garden developers concerns about municipalization, which have resulted in Boulder’s not yet having a solar garden, center on cash flow uncertainty and on meeting regulatory and subscriber obligations that are easily mitigated in the following examples:

-A 10- or 20-acre solar garden is made a part of the University of Colorado’s 308-acre South Campus project. Half of the carbon-free energy is subscribed to by CU and the rest by other local users. The developer cash flow certainty, requirement is met with CU’s guaranty to use and pay for any electrons unmonetized in the unlikely event of disruption resulting from the municipalization project.

-A second example is serving as a wonderful public benefit for a project like the proposed senior living community on Mapleton Hill. A solar garden could provide up to half the carbon-free energy subscribed to by nearby residents on Mapleton Hill who can’t put arrays on their own homes. The energy needs of the 108-home Academy, and a permanently affordable senior housing building at the Fruehauf’s site near 30th and Arapahoe could easily guarantee compliant monetization.

Trading the fuel, operational and logistic costs of handling coal, natural gas and oil for managing the overproduction of our rooftops and gardens… is part of a sustainable and reasonably profitable future for Xcel that improves all participants’ economic social and environmental outcomes.

2. Zero Carbon Mobility.

Another path to a CE carbon-free future is mobility decarbonization. More than 30 percent of the carbon added to our air results from carbon-powered mobility. The CE mobility goal is to get people and things to their destinations with the lowest cost in carbon and dollars per mile traveled. CE enterprises stimulate decarbonization and prove that carbon-free is as economically rewarding as it is environmentally imperative.

Utilize a significant portion of the $7,500 EV (Electric Vehicle) federal tax credit to benefit non-taxpaying 501(c)(3) nonprofits, organizations, and state and local governments, as provided for, but not now used in Internal Revenue Code Section 30D. Nationally, the consequences include moving over a billion dollars a year from operations to mission, while funding market-driven carbon-free mobility innovation. If proven possible, this would be an amazing leadership gift from Boulder, CE and you.

Creating an electric vehicle point to point mobility option in Boulder with a CE app on smartphones, supported by an Uber and Lyft partnership, could bring the closest-available carbon-free EV to users. Several app strategies are now being explored. This enterprise’s incentive, beyond great PR, would be the market power of a lower cost in both carbon and dollars per mile traveled. Strategies have been demonstrated by the Door to Downtown test designed by Rocky Mountain Institute and the City of Boulder. https://www.rmi.org/news/door-downtown-boulder-colorado-tested-future-mobility/

A coordinated program with an organization like Boulder’s Via https://viacolorado.org/ would bring last mile and paratransit into the CE carbon-free mobility story.

3. Establish an annual CE Head and Bed tax.

This proposal would promote a shared annual tax on businesses, employees, and residents to fund free electric buses. If a CE mobility program is funded by everyone who enjoys a positive impact, the price is modest and more affordable than present options. As an example, the best system we can likely negotiate with RTD is improved regional service with Via-provided local electric buses, paid for by an annual tax of $50 per job and $50 per legal bedroom in Boulder, possibly including dormitories, hotels, and even hospitals. A single in-commuter working in Boulder would pay $50 per year for free bus service and a family of four with two jobs and two children in a three-bedroom home would pay $250 per year. The positive CE mobility impact includes something for everybody, starting with cleaner air and economy but also including congestion relief for automobile drivers.

5. Launch the 1000 kW CE token and Searchable Catalog.

A 1000 kW CE is a trading unit that utilizes blockchain to create a self-contained carbon market. This is not a cryptocurrency like a bitcoin; however, it may result in green speculation.

A 1000 kW CE is title to the non-energy attributes of carbon-free generation of 1000 kilowatt hours of energy. Each block in the chain is title to a specific 1000 kW hours of carbon-free energy generated at a specific location, e.g. a particular hydro turbine, windmill or rooftop solar address. The blockchain ledger memorializes the data attributes of a REC (Renewable Energy Certificate), including its history from generation through monetization and retirement.

The advantage of what CE calls “Coin & Catalog” over other energy credit token designs is that it facilitates both a high volume of small transactions, e.g. rooftop REC contract sales, as well as large and complicated carbon offset contracts. The CE point of differentiation is the ability to quickly find and execute a transactional solution that maintains the mission integrity of the credit while fulfilling the buyer’s economic goals.

The 1000 kW CE would allow a business, such as Boulder’s Whole Foods, to illustrate that the amazing 100-year old hydroelectric turbine in Boulder Creek  is powering the store. The cost premium of the energy from the turbine would be like priced with Xcel’s Windsource program for “green” energy (RECs) generated at a windmill hundreds of miles away.

This process would effectively create a carbon market, reversing the current decline in REC valuations while providing a vehicle for rooftop solar owners to cash out of ridiculously low monthly REC payments.  For example, a residential energy consumer with a solar array receiving REC payment checks for just $2 or $3 a month for 10 years could cash out and receive a single payment. Results beyond Boulder would include stimulating carbon-free distributed energy generation and innovation. Reversing negative REC values is akin to a tax cut and will immediately increase installed distributed generation capacity e.g. rooftop and solar gardens.  A recent validation of the coming decarbonization and REC remonetization can be seen in the University of Colorado Athletic Department’s surprising July 26 2018 announcement. https://www.colorado.edu/today/2018/07/26/new-athletics-partnership-beams-solar-savings-cu-community

Perhaps the most important reason to implement a coordinated suite of CE decarbonization strategies in a city like Boulder is the local energy security and control that distributed-generation-based grid resiliency can provide. For technical clarification please see this NREL report titled Distributed Energy Generation for Climate Resilience https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68296.pdf

Conclusion

An important environmental outcome of the coordinated CE energy ecology is having enough installed capacity of carbon-free electricity generation to economically transition away from being a city mostly heated by natural gas to a distributed generation Carbon Free community.

Importantly, getting away from natural gas is also a factor in how Xcel Energy can be a partner in achieving our Carbon Free Community goals, yet continue to be able to afford the outstanding service we are accustomed to: the lights are on, the grid poles and wires provide backup. Being unburdened of the operational and logistical expense of handling most of the coal and natural gas portion of today’s operations, and instead managing the overproduction from our rooftops and gardens can be a sustainable path forward.

Redeployment of more than 500 acres at the Valmont power plant as a Boulder’s Carbon Eraser Energy Park could be our crowning accomplishment. Microgrid switching could be added to the current switching station, and homes could be provided for a several hundred MW utility grade solar garden, and possibly some concentrator solar or other distributed generation. Additionally, the adaptive reuse of the massive retired coal turbine space would be an amazing memorialization of our decarbonization and house one remaining natural gas turbine, providing our carbon free resiliency future’s backup.

The adaptive reuse and redeployment of this acreage will require coal ash cleanup as a substantial component of payment for the land, which would benefit our economy and environment, in many ways bringing Boulder hundreds of megawatts of carbon free energy. In addition, low-cost land with a beautiful views would provide space for affordable housing of a variety of descriptions. These well-located acres could also house other hard-to-meet city and county needs, like affordably priced 501c3 office space, arts venues and studios, and of course, some well-located open space.

Additional innovation on our part and that of others could include a transactive system that allows for peer-to-peer transactions of distributed generation, allowing users to over-generate and donate to their churches/schools, sell to their neighbors, sell to utilities as ancillary service, pair with direct current fast charging for EV’s, and a variety of not yet imagined wonders.

CE requests your partnership and comments, as well as to point out that decarbonization involves billions of dollars of opportunity, some in adaptive reuse and redeployment opportunities, some in connection with reduced health care and energy costs. Please help this to happen.

Thank you,

Richard Polk