Powder to the Planet

A potential breakthrough in carbon dioxide removal courtesy of chemical engineering breakthoughs

Climate crisis dogma asserts that anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO₂), largely from the emissions of combusted hydrocarbons, are the cause of what they see is climate change to the point of eventually becoming apocalyptic and to extremist members of this cult, said apocalypse is already here.

Thus the goal of most endeavors to slow and/or reverse such climate crisis (an example of stable-eartherism) focuses obsessively on CO₂ and removing all human-induced emissions of the gas into the atmosphere. One tool for CO₂ removal, used almost to the point of becoming cliche is the planting of trees.

Trees like virtually any other plant absorb CO₂ storing it in their biomass. If left alone to nature, this carbon may eventually turn into the very hydrocarbons that power modern humanity, of they might be re-released sooner by certain “green” scams. They can also provide habitat or cover to plants and animals, aid in erosion prevention, provide shade and windbreaks, filter water, and they look aesthetically pleasing to many humans. Look in almost any human culture and there is some sort of devotion to trees. In the United States alone, several National Parks and National Monuments are dedicated to preserving specific species of trees.

“Everyone can plant a tree & help fight climate change,” states the Arbor Day Foundation, followed by, “no matter where you live, you can plant trees...and take a proactive, positive step toward keeping our planet healthy.” Well okay, try that in a desert such as Death Valley, or above something called a tree line, or on the millions of acres of prairies. The Nature Conservancy insists that humans planting trees, of which can grow in certain places they don’t grow naturally with the aide of human intervention (i.e. irrigation) is part of a “nature” driven solution to the crisis. The Holy Greta also evangelizes the tactic. Nowadays it’s common to see “X solution is the equivalent of planting Y trees,” or “X trees equals Y amount of CO2 removed from the atmosphere.”

My contribution | Credit: Glamour Garden

The tree planting “solution” however often falls for the old trick of heavy reductionism, which

Heather Heying

notes “is seductive—so easy, so smooth, so very quantifiable.” The late James C Scott, author of Seeing Like A State and source of the term “scientific forestry,” is easily rolling in his grave at what he may call a “one-commodity machine” except in the sense that the commodity here isn’t the lumber itself but instead in the supposedly quantifiable amount of CO₂ they store.

There are estimated to be over 70,000 species of trees, with a further estimation of almost 10,000 still undiscovered or categorized by humans. Each species has evolved to fill specific niches in their environment with each of different sizes and shapes along with different water, soil, and nutrient requirements. These species are also adapted to certain climates more than others and thanks to human intervention, some species such as the Eucalyptus have become invasive along with fire hazards in their non-native habitats such as in California. Yet those who push this solution put these nuances on the back burner by focusing mainly on the idea that one tree equals a certain quantity of CO2 removed. This site, 8billiontrees.com includes a calculator mentioning it can be used with 24 species (it cannot) including tree age, quantity, and diameter of the trunk. Better, but still utterly reductionist.

Now, consider a new alternative being spotlighted by climate crisis propaganda outlets such as the Los Angeles Times. It’s not a tree but instead a powder.

Here’s the opening of the LA Times article press release, rife with reductionism from the start:

A typical large tree can suck as much as 40 kilograms of carbon dioxide out of the air over the course of a year. Now scientists at UC Berkeley say they can do the same job with less than half a pound of a fluffy yellow powder.

Along later with a repeat of the mantra of Science regarding the amount of CO₂ and the amount of warming required to apparently save the world from the worst - something that as

Roger Pielke Jr.

has noted comes far less from scientific evidence and is more based in politics.

Keeping the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide below 450 parts per million is necessary to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels and prevent some of the most dire consequences of climate change, scientists say. Measurements taken at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii indicate that CO2 levels are currently around 423 ppm.

This powder, called COF-999, by the researchers, and also covered in a recent Nature article, (peer-reviewed by the way as as all good, wholesome Science™) available to those not aware of Sci-Hub for a whopping $39.95 to the very people whose taxpayer money likely funded the study and salaries of these academics proports to absorb CO2 using a type of porous polymer called called a covalent organic framework.

Looks cool and super Sciencey™ | credit: Chaoyang Zhao for UC Berkeley

COF-999 sounds like something out of a science fiction novel. The powder, per the primary author of the paper, Omar M. Yaghi, can be absorb and release CO₂ at least 100 times without a decrease in performance. He believes based on laboratory trials the substance will be able to go “though thousands of cycles” of CO₂ capture and release. Heat is used to release the CO₂ out of the powder with the idea to release it into somewhere, such as underground, where it can be stored indefinitely.

It should be noted that Mr. Yaghi’s comment was front and center in the LA Times piece, whose ultra biased propaganda rag bemoans at the idea of anything oil and gas related which is a significant source of research and development around chemical application. But much of the research in these types of polymers came just from that industry. In fact, Mr. Yaghi won an award in 1998 from non other than Exxon for his contributions to the field.

Missing naturally from the celebration over at the LA Times and others is just what it takes to produce this powder and just how much of it would be required to remove any significant amount of CO₂. This is to be expected of course as much of the climate discourse, especially coming from California, ignores externalities instead going for feel good platitudes. A great example of this is all the humble bragging about the state’s transition to “renewables” with no nod to the massive natural resources required, often using cheap Chinese coal, to manufacture items such as solar panels and batteries for electric vehicles or energy storage facilities.

If we’re to go off the quote from the LA Times that one half pound of COF-999 removes 40kg of CO₂ we can, at the expense of reductionism and mixing unit systems, figure out just how much of of this magical substance is required for Angelinos to obtain anything resembling bragging rights.

Going back to the ignoring externalities again, let’s use one of Los Angeles’ likely largest source of both carbon emissions - the LADWP owned Intermountain Power Project, located in Delta Utah which provides a stable base load of electricity to the tune of 13 million MW/hr per year or roughly half all LADWP’s annual electricity production. (To be fair to the LA Times, they are not completely ignorant of this inconvenient truth).

Latest estimates for annual CO₂ release from IPP’s two coal fired generators is around 8.3 million tons per year and this is slated to decrease as the utility plans on phasing out this generation in the future. Given that this is ‘Murica, that’s assumed to be in non metric tons. Magical grade school math puts the amount of COF-999 required to remove just one ton of CO₂ (roughly the per person emissions for a non-stop flight from LAX to Singapore) at 11.34 pounds of COF-999. The amount of COF-999 required to remove just this one year of Angelino’s coal use is a whopping 94,120,000 pounds of COF-999 for one cycle. Unless it’s somewhere in the $39.99 paywalled article, we’re left to wonder just how much COF-999 can be used at one time, the materials and energy required to manufacture the substance and the materials and energy required to actually use it.

China’s coal output, which continues to grow as the country has a thirst for stable and reliable energy for both its people and for its massive manufacturing capacity (i.e. making California’s solar panels, batteries, and other “green” products) is estimated to be 6.13 billion tons this year. China per 2022 estimates is responsible for close to 1/3 of all global carbon emissions. The US? Just shy of 14 percent and falling since the start of the century.

Will COF-999 become viable solution to removing CO₂ from the atmosphere? Or is this just another example of science by press-release? Will radical climate crisis activists poo poo this idea just as they poo poo other carbon capture ideas as a “false climate solution” pushed by the evil fossil fuel industry?

The verdict is remains to be reached and will likely be obfuscated by the plague of reductionism.