Mitchell Dickau
@mitchelldickau.bsky.social
Climate models. Temperature overshoot. Remaining carbon budgets. Effect of climate change on outdoor skating in Canada.
PhD candidate, Concordia University
PhD candidate, Concordia University
That's why carbon removal should be the last resort, not Plan A. Stopping the burning of fossil fuels must be the priority. Thanks to falling renewable costs, that’s getting easier every year
October 9, 2025 at 7:53 PM
That's why carbon removal should be the last resort, not Plan A. Stopping the burning of fossil fuels must be the priority. Thanks to falling renewable costs, that’s getting easier every year
I’m all for R&D and investment in carbon removal — it matters for hard-to-decarbonize sectors. But relying on it to offset avoidable fossil emissions doesn’t make sense when electrification and non-emitting electricity can eliminate most emissions far more affordably and at scale.
October 9, 2025 at 7:53 PM
I’m all for R&D and investment in carbon removal — it matters for hard-to-decarbonize sectors. But relying on it to offset avoidable fossil emissions doesn’t make sense when electrification and non-emitting electricity can eliminate most emissions far more affordably and at scale.
So, does it make sense to keep burning fossil fuels for power and then try to pull that CO₂ back out of the sky later?Not really. On average, renewables are already cheaper than fossil fuels – even if we don't include the cost of CO₂ removal.
Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?
In most places, power from new renewables is now cheaper than new fossil fuels.
ourworldindata.org
October 9, 2025 at 7:53 PM
So, does it make sense to keep burning fossil fuels for power and then try to pull that CO₂ back out of the sky later?Not really. On average, renewables are already cheaper than fossil fuels – even if we don't include the cost of CO₂ removal.
How many plants like one proposed in Manitoba would we need to offset even one quarter of global CO₂ emissions at today's rate of emission? ~20,000 plants.
That’s $10 trillion to build at the current price — not counting operating costs.
That’s $10 trillion to build at the current price — not counting operating costs.
October 9, 2025 at 7:53 PM
How many plants like one proposed in Manitoba would we need to offset even one quarter of global CO₂ emissions at today's rate of emission? ~20,000 plants.
That’s $10 trillion to build at the current price — not counting operating costs.
That’s $10 trillion to build at the current price — not counting operating costs.
A new $500-million Deep Sky DAC plant is planned for Manitoba.
It’s designed to remove 500,000 tonnes of CO₂ per year — which equals just six and a half minutes of global emissions at today’s rate of emission
It’s designed to remove 500,000 tonnes of CO₂ per year — which equals just six and a half minutes of global emissions at today’s rate of emission
Deep Sky unveils plans for one of the world’s biggest direct air carbon capture facilities in Manitoba
The plant, when fully complete, will absorb 500,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide annually, the Montreal-based company says
www.theglobeandmail.com
October 9, 2025 at 7:53 PM
A new $500-million Deep Sky DAC plant is planned for Manitoba.
It’s designed to remove 500,000 tonnes of CO₂ per year — which equals just six and a half minutes of global emissions at today’s rate of emission
It’s designed to remove 500,000 tonnes of CO₂ per year — which equals just six and a half minutes of global emissions at today’s rate of emission
Direct air capture (DAC) is the only truly durable carbon removal tech we have right now.
The biggest DAC plant on Earth? It’ll capture just 900 tonnes of CO₂ (at $1000/tonne) in its first year of operation. That's less than 1 second worth of the 40 billion tonnes of CO₂ we emit each year.
The biggest DAC plant on Earth? It’ll capture just 900 tonnes of CO₂ (at $1000/tonne) in its first year of operation. That's less than 1 second worth of the 40 billion tonnes of CO₂ we emit each year.
The Collapse of Confidence in Carbon Capture | OilPrice.com
Carbon Capture and Storage, once seen as a lifeline for the oil and gas industry, is facing mounting doubts as delays, high costs, and poor performance cast serious doubts on its future viability.
oilprice.com
October 9, 2025 at 7:53 PM
Direct air capture (DAC) is the only truly durable carbon removal tech we have right now.
The biggest DAC plant on Earth? It’ll capture just 900 tonnes of CO₂ (at $1000/tonne) in its first year of operation. That's less than 1 second worth of the 40 billion tonnes of CO₂ we emit each year.
The biggest DAC plant on Earth? It’ll capture just 900 tonnes of CO₂ (at $1000/tonne) in its first year of operation. That's less than 1 second worth of the 40 billion tonnes of CO₂ we emit each year.
Thanks to my co-author @damonmatthews.bsky.social !
April 30, 2025 at 7:39 AM
Thanks to my co-author @damonmatthews.bsky.social !
Read the abstract here if you’re into the details:
🔗 doi.org/10.5194/egus...
More coming soon on this work!
🔗 doi.org/10.5194/egus...
More coming soon on this work!
Abstract EGU25-7422
doi.org
April 30, 2025 at 7:39 AM
Read the abstract here if you’re into the details:
🔗 doi.org/10.5194/egus...
More coming soon on this work!
🔗 doi.org/10.5194/egus...
More coming soon on this work!
For global temperature
✅ If we're rapidly cutting emissions, temporary CDR can help reduce peak warming.
⚠️ If emissions stay high past 2100, it only delays the heat—not avoids it.
✅ If we're rapidly cutting emissions, temporary CDR can help reduce peak warming.
⚠️ If emissions stay high past 2100, it only delays the heat—not avoids it.
April 30, 2025 at 7:39 AM
For global temperature
✅ If we're rapidly cutting emissions, temporary CDR can help reduce peak warming.
⚠️ If emissions stay high past 2100, it only delays the heat—not avoids it.
✅ If we're rapidly cutting emissions, temporary CDR can help reduce peak warming.
⚠️ If emissions stay high past 2100, it only delays the heat—not avoids it.
Think reforestation that sequesters CO₂ now, but gets cut or burned later. Even though the carbon is re-emitted, we found there's still a benefit to temporary carbon storage —especially for slow climate responding variables like sea level rise.
April 30, 2025 at 7:39 AM
Think reforestation that sequesters CO₂ now, but gets cut or burned later. Even though the carbon is re-emitted, we found there's still a benefit to temporary carbon storage —especially for slow climate responding variables like sea level rise.
We looked at the climate impact of temporary carbon dioxide removal (CDR)—when carbon is captured but not stored forever.
April 30, 2025 at 7:39 AM
We looked at the climate impact of temporary carbon dioxide removal (CDR)—when carbon is captured but not stored forever.
This difference in time horizons highlights why monitoring, reporting, and verification of land emissions and removals is essential, and why carbon markets must find robust methods to account for carbon losses due to disturbance.
April 22, 2025 at 4:56 PM
This difference in time horizons highlights why monitoring, reporting, and verification of land emissions and removals is essential, and why carbon markets must find robust methods to account for carbon losses due to disturbance.
The timescale in which CO2 impacts temperature is 1000s of years. The longevity of nature based CDR is dynamically linked to climate and operates on much shorter timescales.
April 22, 2025 at 4:56 PM
The timescale in which CO2 impacts temperature is 1000s of years. The longevity of nature based CDR is dynamically linked to climate and operates on much shorter timescales.
Hi Paul! I'm a student researcher with the ECCC CCCS for a bit over a year now. Could you add me to your list?
January 9, 2025 at 3:10 PM
Hi Paul! I'm a student researcher with the ECCC CCCS for a bit over a year now. Could you add me to your list?
But I am aware that we need to reduce our meat consumption and think it's an important part of climate mitigation. I just think there are important distinctions
December 4, 2024 at 10:54 PM
But I am aware that we need to reduce our meat consumption and think it's an important part of climate mitigation. I just think there are important distinctions
If you emit 100 Gt CO2e through raising cattle and then stop, the CO2 portion from LUC would be mostly reversed as the forest/grasslands regrow. The methane contribution to warming will also mostly be gone after 25 years.
December 4, 2024 at 10:54 PM
If you emit 100 Gt CO2e through raising cattle and then stop, the CO2 portion from LUC would be mostly reversed as the forest/grasslands regrow. The methane contribution to warming will also mostly be gone after 25 years.
Well if we're trying to limit warming in the long term it matters. Let's say 100 Gt CO2 are emitted from coal and from raising cattle. For the 100 Gt CO2 from burning coal, the only way to truly reverse the warming effects in the long-term is using DACCS.
December 4, 2024 at 10:54 PM
Well if we're trying to limit warming in the long term it matters. Let's say 100 Gt CO2 are emitted from coal and from raising cattle. For the 100 Gt CO2 from burning coal, the only way to truly reverse the warming effects in the long-term is using DACCS.
It's 80x more powerful, but with a steady rate of emissions, the contribution to warming from CH4 is also mostly steady (perhaps a slight increase) because methane has a much shorter atmospheric lifetime.
December 4, 2024 at 10:44 PM
It's 80x more powerful, but with a steady rate of emissions, the contribution to warming from CH4 is also mostly steady (perhaps a slight increase) because methane has a much shorter atmospheric lifetime.
Any emission of CO₂ from coal contributes to warming.
Obviously we have to reduce beef consumption to meet Paris Agreement targets, and obviously lots of this info has been twisted by the beef industry, but it's important to recognize the differences between biogenic and fossil emissions
Obviously we have to reduce beef consumption to meet Paris Agreement targets, and obviously lots of this info has been twisted by the beef industry, but it's important to recognize the differences between biogenic and fossil emissions
December 4, 2024 at 10:43 PM
Any emission of CO₂ from coal contributes to warming.
Obviously we have to reduce beef consumption to meet Paris Agreement targets, and obviously lots of this info has been twisted by the beef industry, but it's important to recognize the differences between biogenic and fossil emissions
Obviously we have to reduce beef consumption to meet Paris Agreement targets, and obviously lots of this info has been twisted by the beef industry, but it's important to recognize the differences between biogenic and fossil emissions
Because temperature contribution of anthropogenic CH4 mostly stabilizes when the rate of emission remains the same, cattle production could theoretically be close to neutral from a temperature standpoint if the number of cattle and and the amount of land being used both stay the same.
December 4, 2024 at 10:43 PM
Because temperature contribution of anthropogenic CH4 mostly stabilizes when the rate of emission remains the same, cattle production could theoretically be close to neutral from a temperature standpoint if the number of cattle and and the amount of land being used both stay the same.