AI-powered
podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
I'm Not Seeing 200 Billion Dollars a Year on Direct Air Capture
The idea that you would spend that sort of money for a benefit that is some future, you knowhat's in any way, theoretical. I can see spending on renewable energy, on energy efficiencyon on one er, lots of things around mitigation and adaptation. But i'm not seeing a couple of hundred billion a year spent on direct air capture. If you were to do carbon capture on a cement plant, it would double the cost of cement ok? It would go from, say, a hundred dollars a ton of concrete production, to 200 dollars a ton,. That would increase the price of a bridge made entirely out of concrete by one %. The same thing happens if you did direct air