I see that others are pointing out that reducing carbon emissions is a mug’s game. At RealClearEnergy Beau Rothschild articulates the case for carbon capture:
Next month, United Nations scientists are set to report that we can no longer win the battle against climate change by reducing carbon emissions: we have to start draining those emissions from the air. This conclusion simply adds to a growing scientific consensus that carbon removal technologies that actively remove CO2 already in circulation can be delayed no longer. Thus far, the U.S. government has only shown lukewarm support for these technologies, but America has as much to gain as anyone from their mass adoption. It’s time for President Donald J. Trump and his administration to take a second look at this issue to put America first in carbon capture technology.
The UN report is hardly surprising given the problems that have blighted the Paris climate agreement. Trump, of course, has already pulled out, and many other countries are showing indifference; a report earlier this year ranked three-quarters of EU member-states “poor†in their attempts to meet their Paris obligations. A recent meeting, supposed to lay down a set of rules for the agreement’s implementation, ended in deadlock – the latest in a series of tetchy summits that have exposed political fault lines in the accord.
He goes on to touch on various technologies for accomplishing this from planting trees to carbon capture and storage systems. In the past I’ve mentioned artificial trees. As he notes, the places to install these devices are coal-fired power plants.
“As he notes, the places to install these devices are coal-fired power plants.â€
Amen. I have noted this before. My college thesis involved a study to determine the thermodynamics and kinetics of sulfur capture by in situ iron in coal fired fluidized bed boilers. ( a chap named Jen Dong Duh did the thermo). One wonders why the exact same concept cannot apply to carbon.
IMO we need to look at all potential approaches, including this one.
At one time, trees & plants were a zero-sum solution. I do not remember the reasoning, but the CO2 absorbed by the trees would be released back into the atmosphere. This was also the reason that AWG had nothing to do with de-forestation. I guess the settled science was not so settled.
So, what is the new final-final, drop-dead, absolutely-positively point-of-no-return doomsday date? I am eagerly awaiting it.
Not sure I understand that one, Tasty. The CO2 and water used by trees (and other things) ends up as off gassed O2 and sugars. The sugars eventually become cellulose to support plant growth. Not sure how the C and O now in the sugars/cellulose get back into the atmosphere. Do you recall the cycle name?
@Drew
I do not remember exactly, but it was something about the CO2 trees use is offset by the CO2 humans release. I think humans eating plants or animals that eat plants was part of the cycle, but I do not remember exactly.
The reasoning made sense in a Rube Goldberg contraption sort of way. Here is a sample (diagram):
How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?
The article must be over ten years old (note the date of the 1st comment), and back then, the goal of the AWG priests and their acolytes was to eliminate fossil fuels. Therefore, trees were an unacceptable solution.
Wouldn’t the the co2 absorbed by trees pale in comparison to that by
phytoplankton? Maybe the trick is to fertilize the seas. This has been done in waters near Alaska to stimulate phytoplankton growth and through the food chain, increase salmon harvest several years later.
So, what is the new final-final, drop-dead, absolutely-positively point-of-no-return doomsday date? I am eagerly awaiting it.
According to the Trump Administration, by the end of the century. It forecasts a 3.5 degree Celcius rise in temperature. Two degrees will be rough. 3.5 degrees means we’re finished.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/ld_cafe_my2021-26_deis_0.pdf
I never knew Trump was conducting climate studies from the Oval Office….
Whenever I take (waste) the time reading these mmgw debates and assertions I come away again reinforced that data fidelity and mechanism definition are nowhere in climate science. Amidst all the noise and shaky descriptions of processes is simply conjecture. And never a sensible solution proposed.
@Drew (aka Mr. Smarty Pants)
NEWSFLASH!!!!
Barack Obama, Al Gore, and Leonardo DiCaprio are the top scientists of our time.
You keep trying to make us believe that you understand science, but you have never cited one poll to back your “science”.