To the editor: Their article on new scientific interventions to address global climate problems begins with the questionable claim that direct air capture to sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide represents perhaps one of “the world's best hopes for combating climate change.”
And yet he is quick to point out that it would take 1 million facilities like the initial plant now operating in San Joaquin County to make a significant impact on global carbon levels. Is that a viable strategy?
We will have to pursue multiple options to meet the climate challenge, but this and other flashy new concepts are far less effective and far more costly than the direct approach of reducing man-made carbon emissions by eliminating the use of fossil fuels.
It is essential that our policymakers keep this direct approach as our primary focus, with the use of a carbon tax to incentivize electrification across industries and a dividend program to return revenue to the citizenry.
Chad Edwards, Altadena
..
To the editor: It is true that there is no magic technological solution to fight climate change. This battle requires a silver pellet approach, spreading pellets over a wide range.
We must first reduce our respective carbon footprints by reducing the amount of fossil fuels used in many areas of our society. We then need to remove the carbon dioxide we have already emitted from our atmosphere. As a reminder, carbon emissions can remain in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, so a large buildup needs to be addressed.
There is a bill in the California Legislature that takes a method-agnostic approach to carbon removal. Senate Bill 308 directs the California Air Resources Board to establish technology-neutral rules that ensure that any negative emissions (removed carbon) accounted for to meet our goals are of high quality and avoid harmful side effects.
Let's hope that a bill like this, when passed, will boost the carbon removal process properly and quickly.
Jonathan Luz, Laguna Niguel
