Comments on: Carbon Capture and Storage Growth Stalled in 2011

By: Rob

Rob — Mon, 14 May 2012 00:56:00 +0000

Your point #2 is a loquacious way of saying nobody has ever put forward the theory that climate change has a human cause. It is one thing to disagree with the anthropogenic climate change theory but to say the theory doesn’t exist exposes you as either an idiot or having your head firmly planted in the sand or some combination thereof.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Mon, 14 May 2012 00:18:00 +0000

Gerald, that’s just foolish talk.

Human caused global warming is settled science. Would you like a list of a few hundred international scientific organizations that have accepted the fact that people have changed the planet’s climate by burning fossil fuels?

The remaining questions are simply ‘How much?’ and ‘How fast?’.

By: Altair IV

Altair IV — Sun, 13 May 2012 19:25:00 +0000

Your “reality” is obviously very different from the one everybody else is experiencing. For those of us in the real world the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change is rock-solid and the evidence is overwhelming. It only took me a couple of minutes on Google to locate one of the main IPCC reports summarizing the science in support of it.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

That’s just one report, 12 years old and almost 900 pages long, on this “yet to be articulated” hypothesis.

I will however agree with you that carbon sequestration is a mistake, but only because not producing CO2 emissions in the first place is a much better long-term solution.

By: Hope

Hope — Sun, 13 May 2012 14:44:00 +0000

http://igg.me/p/36238

By: Gerald Wilhite

Gerald Wilhite — Sun, 13 May 2012 11:14:00 +0000

The problem for the embryonic CO2 sequestration industry is that it is an expensive experimental solution in search of a problem. To everybody except the true believers, the reality is that the notion that man-made CO2 is significant factor in global warming is (1) sorely lacking in the scientifically sound evidence department, and (2) yet to even be articulated by its proponents as a legitimate scientific hypothesis that can be subjected to falsifiability tests.

By: RobS

RobS — Sun, 13 May 2012 01:14:00 +0000

I think carbon capture propagates the myth that burning millions of years worth of fossilised carbon per year can ever be clean or sustainable. What we need to do is reduce the production of CO2 and let the perfectly capable natural carbon sinks which presently absorb 97% of all CO2 released continue to do their job.

By: RobS

RobS — Sun, 13 May 2012 01:11:00 +0000

Heres an idea, rather than a complicated techno fix which involves chemical and labor intensive manufacturing why don’t we use a low maintenance chemical free alternative called trees, they by pure chance also produce lumber whose use in construction also locks up co2 very effectively.

By: Matt

Matt — Sun, 13 May 2012 01:01:00 +0000

As long as it is free do dump it in the air why would any company pay to capture it. For storage or structural plastic. A company’s goal is to make money. The US government has said over and over again, dump all you want into the air, it is someone else problem to deal with. Until the rules say there is a cost to dumping it in the air, that is where the CO2 is going to go.

By: James Salsman

James Salsman — Sun, 13 May 2012 00:07:00 +0000

Pumping waste carbon underground is a profoundly silly idea. Use it to make structural plastic lumber (look it up) and it’s sequestered much more firmly while promoting reforestation.

By: mk1313

mk1313 — Sat, 12 May 2012 23:07:00 +0000

Good! This is a disaster waiting to happen!!!!!!!!!! Coals so called “clean” boondoggle!