Direct Air Capture Is a Waste of Carbon and Money

Carbon sequestration makes no more sense than pumping money into the ground

Photo by Juan Davila on Unsplash.

Mon, 03/18/2024 - 00:03

In his Quality Digest article published in February 2023, Michael Mills1 reported that the next version of ISO 9001 will add to clause 4.1, “Understanding the organization and its context” the words, “the organization shall determine whether climate change is a relevant issue.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Although nothing in this article constitutes formal engineering advice, my upfront recommendation to ISO 9001 users is to add in their quality manuals under clause 4.1 the words, “The organization’s existing process [cite the process here] that addresses risks to continuity of operations covers all foreseeable risks related to climate change.” Risks to continuity of operations include those related to climate change, such as hurricanes, flooding, and droughts, along with unrelated ones, such as earthquakes and acts of war.

 …

Want to continue?
Log in or create a FREE account.
By logging in you agree to receive communication from Quality Digest. Privacy Policy.

Comments

Submitted by Dennis Middleton (not verified) on Mon, 03/18/2024 - 09:24

I'm certainly NOT a scientist, but the whole time I'm reading Mr. Levinson's article, I'm saying to myself, "Don't trees use CO2?"  Lo, and behold! I am vindicated in my outlandish theory!  I thoroughly enjoyed, (and understood), this article.  Always follow the money! Thanks Quality Digest for supporting common sense communication.

The ISO / IAF Amendments are specific and users do not have to do what you recommend - at all. "my upfront recommendation to ISO 9001 users is to add in their quality manuals under clause 4.1 the words,...". See "https://iaf.nu/en/news/iaf-and-iso-publish-joint-communique/#:~:text=IAF%2DISO%20Joint%20Communiqu%C3%A9%20on,existing%20ISO%20management%20systems%20standards"

I couldn't make the link work but it led me to https://iaf.nu/en/news/iaf-and-iso-publish-joint-communique/ (was this what you intended?) which says, among other things, "Certified organisations should ensure that they have considered Climate Change aspects and risks within the development, maintenance, and effectiveness their own management system(s)."

As ISO 9001 is not prescriptive, i.e. it does not tell us how we must deploy the clauses, you are absolutely right; my recommendation is exactly that, and not a requirement. An organization is probably free to say, "We considered it and we do not believe it is applicable to our operations." This is true if one's operations are not susceptible to climate-related force majeure. If however one has a supply chain, e.g. for agricultural products that can be harmed by droughts or frost, they are probably already trading in futures and/or doing other things to mitigate these associated risks which has been a practice for hundreds of years. They weren't thinking about climate change back then, but they were certainly thinking about climate-related effects. If the organization is doing this then it is in fact considering, and acting upon, climate-related risks.

If an organization plans to hold a conference, and offers remote conferencing as an alternative to physical presence in the event of a snowstorm (climate-related) that disrupts air travel, it is in fact accounting for climate-related risks. Hence my recommendation that organizations look at what they are already doing to ensure continuity of operations, and cite them in the context of the new requirement.

 

Add new comment