The best answer to CO2 sequestration is of course ‘why?’
Don’t you love journalism?
‘Some negative environmental consequences’
You mean, the CO2 bubbling back up through aquifers, making them carbonated (fizzy), and killing all of the animals who try drinking from ponds where the CO2 comes back up? (asphyxiation - CO2 is heavier than air and hugs the floor)
Has anybody EVER considered that you could take a sample of any place on earth near the surface of the earth and measure the CO2 levels. That’s where the CO2 is going to be. If you don’t see an increase there, it isn’t going to appear anywhere else in the air column.
This is why the ocean is an effective absorber of CO2. It hugs the surface of the water, whereupon it can be used by aquatic plant life.
If only there was a shred of science behind CO2 hysteria.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/07/epa-admits-to-senate-that-co2-regs-not-about-pollution-control/
CO2 regs are not about pollution but about forcing people to buy energy efficient appliances.
DISCLAIMER:
Boulder Colorado is a long know drug refuge and the home of the University of Colorado, a top party school. Colorado legalized drugs recently and published data should be accepted as possibly tainted.
Acid rain does this much better. Maybe a more acidic ocean is a negative feedback.
Huh, how about that. Me and my buddies was talkin' about that very thing last Friday night in the bar.......
when you hear scientists talking about “geoengineering” in direct and intentional ways by humans, call them out for the fools they are