Do we need carbon-eating machines to fight climate change? Some scientists say yes.

Late last year, a team of scientists published a study on technologies that can remove carbon from the atmosphere. Some worry that this will distract from a necessary focus on reducing how much we pollute. But, because carbon lingers in the atmosphere for up to a thousand years, others believe that reducing emissions is not enough to save the planet from falling deeper into its current climate crisis.

“The typical way we talk about tackling climate change is trying to stop greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere. But the climate math is against us now,” said Dr. Simon Nicholson, Assistant Professor of International Relations and co-director of the Institute for Carbon Removal Law and Policy at American University and one of the study’s reviewers. He added, ”It looks like emissions abatement alone won’t be enough to avoid crashing through critical climate thresholds.”

However, DC climate activist Mark Rodeffer is more skeptical, saying, “It would be great if there were some magic machine that could suck it out of the atmosphere and store it somewhere (not sure where — maybe underground?). But that technology doesn’t exist, we don’t know if it can ever exist, and we don’t know the cost.”

How to remove carbon from the atmosphere?

The NAS study looked broadly at two different approaches for removing carbon from the atmosphere: the natural biological way, and then the super-futuristic improbable sounding way that employs machines that suck carbon straight out of the air.

The biological approach is something most of us are already familiar with. It involves planting trees and restoring wetlands as a way to enhance the way our environment processes and absorbs the carbon around us.

The other approach, however, involves something that seems to come straight out of a science fiction novel. In a process called “direct air capture,” scientists build machines that suck carbon out of the air and then, using a chemical process, turn the carbon into a liquid which gets injected deep into the earth or put to another use.

Nicholson said that the basic idea involves taking the waste product from such processes and putting it back where it came from, such as into abandoned oil wells or other geological features. But, he said, “there are dangers, the sort of types of dangers you see with fracking.”

Paul Angelone, Senior Director of Advisory Services at the Urban Land Institute, added that re-injecting carbon into the ground is, at least currently, very expensive. While that’s “not necessarily a deal breaker,” depending on what kind of well or mine the carbon came from, “the life cycle may produce more carbon than is being sequestered. The oil and coal industries are very interested in this technology for more fracking and coal use,” he said.

While the traditional approach to carbon removal is relatively cost-effective when compared to this new and unusual technological approach, the study argued that natural methods will not be able to do enough of what is required this century to save us from our slow tail-spin into climate disaster.

Is this a conversation we need to have now?

“Ideally, we wouldn’t be having a conversation about anything so speculative, particularly at the scales that are being discussed,” Nicholson said. But things have gotten so bad with the climate crisis, Nicholson said, scientists are putting everything on the table now.

As a result, the report concludes that there needs to be an investment in direct air capture technologies and other ways for approaching carbon removal.

This report comes amid the race to 2050, as cities across the globe, including DC, are doing all they can to get their emissions to “net zero” — though Nicholson said there are questions about what the term actually means.

“Ultimately, whichever way you cut it up, just trying to keep greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere alone won’t be enough. There’s going to be some really hard to decarbonize pieces of the DC economy, which are going to require carbon removal if you’re actually really serious about going to a net zero.”

Nicholson added that the District is doing things to remove carbon, and organizations such as Casey Trees have been actively involved in carbon removal through managing the city’s tree canopy. But he said the city can also think about speculative technologies such as “carbon-sucking building materials,” highlighting the seriousness of the climate crisis and our desperation to find solutions to this ever-growing problem.

Or, is it a distraction?

“Being able to remove carbon from the atmosphere to restore our natural balance would be great and a game changer for the planet but I also don’t want longer-term solutions to cloud necessary discussion on the non-sexy projects like energy efficiency, better land use, and less carbon-intensive transportation,” said Angelone.

Rodeffer, a board member with DC’s Sierra Club chapter, agreed. “I’m highly skeptical of this approach to combating climate change,” he wrote in an email:

We know the problem: we are emitting too much carbon and other greenhouse gases.

We know the solution: stop emitting so much carbon and other greenhouse gases.

So what’s a better approach to dealing with climate change: 1) Hoping for a magical solution in the future? or 2) Using the knowledge and technology that we have now to address the problem now?

To me the answer is clearly #2. But if I’m a polluter, say a coal plant operator or a fracked gas company, I might like #1, because it casts the problem not as one of polluters polluting but other people not cleaning up the mess caused by polluters.

If this magic machine is invented in the future, that would be great. But until that happens, we should focus on the real-world solutions we already have.

Local governments are working on reducing carbon emissions in many ways. In the District, where 75% of emissions come from buildings, strict new requirements push for more efficient buildings, and a few specific buildings are leading the way.

As DC and many other cities continue to try to cut pollution, debates will rage about whether new carbon removal technologies are distracting pipe dreams or absolute necessities to save the planet.