I haven't read the paper that figure is supposedly based on, but it doesn't seem plausible based on some simple calculations: The average person in the US emits 16.1 metric tons of CO2 per year[0], and direct air capture of CO2 costs "between $250-$600 today" per tonne[1].
So even if no progress was made in the next 30 years to lower carbon emissions, and no progress was made on improving the costs of direct air capture, it should still cost less than $10,000 per person for the US to produce net zero emissions.
His argument is basically it's not worth doing it "Because vast part of 21st century emissions come currently poor world".
That seems like a rather odd stance to me, effectively he is saying it's too expensive for us as a rich country to do and at the same time expects poorer countries to do it - how can they manage that if it's already too much for the richer countries?
2 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 20.9 ms ] threadSo even if no progress was made in the next 30 years to lower carbon emissions, and no progress was made on improving the costs of direct air capture, it should still cost less than $10,000 per person for the US to produce net zero emissions.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
[1] https://www.wri.org/insights/direct-air-capture-resource-con...
That seems like a rather odd stance to me, effectively he is saying it's too expensive for us as a rich country to do and at the same time expects poorer countries to do it - how can they manage that if it's already too much for the richer countries?