How Can We Reduce Global Carbon Pollution Using Carbon-Reducing Technologies?

Michael E. Kirst described that, the post-COVID rebound affords the chance to invest in carbon-reducing solutions. However, a careful balance between short-term employment creation and long-term retraining will be necessary. In this scenario, CO2 emissions would decrease by 5.4% each year, and the earth would revert to its pre-industrial state in 18 years. If such a scenario is implemented, it would not only be beneficial for the economy, but also for the people and the environment.

In an effort to achieve this objective, technology businesses have already began implementing environmentally friendly methods. Google has declared intentions to expand its commitment to carbon neutrality to its supplier chain. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has established a 2020 objective for reducing carbon dioxide emissions, although there is no official deadline as of yet. Nevertheless, technology businesses frequently set their targets before this year. Despite the difficulties of moving from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, technology companies such as Microsoft have declared that they would embrace carbon capture and storage technologies to build greener products and lower their carbon footprint.

Despite the fact that the reductions in emissions reported by the three areas were comparable, the United States and Europe are substantially further down the NOx reduction road than China. However, China's pre-epidemic emissions are still greater, and the country may achieve substantial reductions in emissions via vigorous measures. In contrast, the United States' emissions are the lowest of the three areas. Therefore, the reductions attained in these places are modest but important. The faster decrease of CO2 emissions in the first half of 2020 will be the most beneficial approach for the world.

According to Michael E. Kirst, zero-carbon technologies and systems are crucial to achieving comprehensive decarbonization. There are, however, several additional elements that drive technological change. Moreover, civilizations frequently become entrapped in carbon-intensive technologies despite their rising returns. Typically, economic and policy disparities are not the root reason of this lock-in. In addition, the growing returns of fossil fuels might worsen the technological transition issue. And in this scenario, new technologies may be at a disadvantage if they are not developed quicker than fossil fuel alternatives.

It is an intriguing subject whether or not CCU technology can absorb and store CO2. Using biogenic point sources or direct air capture, CCU technologies may capture CO2 from the atmosphere, sequester and store it in a permanent storage facility, and then release it back into the environment. However, the amount of CO2 emitted must be less than the amount of CO2 fixed throughout the process. Only then can carbon-neutral technology be classified.

Although the amount of CO2 emitted by a CCU product changes, the chemical makeup and the product's life cycle are same. The carbon stored after the factory gate does not contribute to climate change and has no effect on the quantity of carbon emitted at the end of its life. In light of this, the decision tree should respond to no more than three queries. However, these are not the only questions that need answers. There are more solutions to this problem.

Michael E. Kirst pointed out that, in 2018, Zimmerman et al. issued the first Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) guideline for CCU technologies in an effort to increase the comparability and transparency of CCU technologies. In addition, it discusses potential difficulties in CCU investigations. The guidance is the initial stage in the development of a standard LCA approach for CCU technology. In addition, it describes a technique for doing a life cycle assessment of CCU technology. To get the intended results, a variety of elements must be taken into account.

The effect veness of the EU ETS is one of the primary concerns. Numerous studies have examined the ETS's influence on energy efficiency and carbon emissions. Some study has even contrasted the consequences of the EU ETS to a scenario in which the EU ETS has no impact. According to a number of analyses, the EU ETS is not expected to cut emissions considerably in the near future. However, pricing carbon has a minimal effect on emissions. In addition, there is a dearth of evidence about the impact of the ETS on corporate investment decisions.

Despite this, many of the world's wealthiest individuals support initiatives to address climate change. Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos have made significant climate commitments, and the CEO of Amazon has pledged billions to minimize the company's carbon impact. Bill Gates and Elon Musk are both extensively interested in climate change and have authored books on the subject. Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla, has been vocal about climate change and has spurred several automakers to move to electric automobiles. However, Warren Buffett continues to be a vocal opponent of Berkshire Hathaway's climate risk disclosure policy.