Opinions

We encourage discussions about political responsibilities, urgency, feasibility and other issues around the unique approach of enhanced weathering of olivine for Carbon Dioxyde Removal. These give the opinions of others. The Olivine Foundation is not responsible for the content.

Your feedback is most welcome, please contact us.

Negative carbon dioxide emissions | In Science, November 2016

A discussion: “Trouble with negative emissions ?”

Kevin Anderson and Glen Peters assert that negative-emissions technologies are an “unjust and high-stakes gamble.”

Klaus Lackner et al contradict the authors: “This characterization would sideline negative- emissions technologies and remove potentially important options from the portfolio for mitigating and ameliorating climate change.”

Read these Science-publications.

Kevin Anderson – 2016.10.13 – the Trouble with Negative Emissions – Science 2016

Klaus Lackner et al – Response to The Trouble of Negative Emissions – Science 11 Nov 2016

Lackner et al Science 11 Nov 2016 – Full author list

Urgency | Guy Lomax

Should Removing Greenhouse Gases from the atmosphere be more than a Plan B? In this VEC blog, Guy Lomax notes that the IPCC has become the latest major institution to propose removing billions of tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere to meet climate targets. But, he asks, is the Greenhouse Gas Removal debate focusing on the wrong questions? Read the blog

Time for Action | Oliver Tickel

Oliver Tickell writes in Time for Action about a mystery: Why has this tremendous opportunity to safely and cheaply sequester carbon dioxide received virtually no attention? Read the blog

Affordable and available at gigatonne scale | Noah Deich

I often hear critics dismiss carbon removal approaches as both too expensive and too small-scale to have a material impact on mitigating climate change. And while that assessment may be true today, many experts predict that, in the long run, removing carbon from the atmosphere will be both affordable and available at a gigatonne (billion tonne) scale. This VEC guest blog by Noah Deich examines what is and isn’t known about the cost of removing carbon from the atmosphere. Read the blog

Nine reasons to love olivine | Nichol Brummer

The pro’s and con’s of the use of olivine brought in a wider context such as the environment and the climate as well as world economies and geopolitical consequences. Read our page.

Barriers to Deployment – Opportunities | Nichol Brummer

  • No current business model for carbon dioxide removal. The main barrier to the most simple and potentially large scale deployment of olivine weathering is severe.
  • Emissions Trade Systems are designed for the polluters. The ETS system provides no independent profit mechanism for simply removing CO2 that is already in the atmosphere. Something like the “Clean Development Mechanism” (CDM) or “Joint Implementation” (JI) of the Kyoto Protocol could help, if there would be allowed to work for this application.
  • Environmental regulations. Environmental regulations have always been designed for the existing reality.
  • Think! Side benefits can often be large. However, even though the research into large scale deployment of Olivine Weathering depends on government initiatives, there are opportunities for market-based initiatives!

Read our page!

Strengths | Weaknesses | Opportunities | Threats

SWOT: Our analysis of the Foundation’s position.

Read our page

I am text block. Click edit button to change this text. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.