I still doubt that our contribution to atmospheric CO2 means much.
All plants require Carbon dioxide in order to survive. If they do enough of this, they’ll kill off the plants.
And they’re just dumb and corrupt enough to do it. No doubt they’ll get huge government grants.
Our contribution is around 0.0002% of the total. This is a one of those ideas that will have unintended consequences - its not nice to mess with Mother Nature - she needs the CO2 for her plants and to give us more oxygen, which, by the way, has been steadily declining for millenniums.
Climate change is a hoax. All efforts to “mitigate the damage” of CO2 “pollution” (aka plant food) is a waste of resources.
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is absolutely essential for photosynthesis. Getting all “wee weed up” (you will remember the erudite scholar who coined that term) over it makes about as much sense as pushing a boulder uphill—fruitless and senseless.
Watch these religion of the left evil wizards, put us into an ice age. So much better than Gorebull wurming.
It must hurt these Luddites to learn that Science and Technology might eventually come to their rescure..
Satellite survey has revealed a greening of the world, especially the more arid regions. The higher the CO2, the less stomata the leafy component require for transpiration, leading to less water loss through the leaves.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/25/inconvenient-study-co2-fertilization-greening-the-earth/
I think we should turn all that excess carbon dioxide into pianos. Everybody likes pianos, they add value, and you can use lots and lots of wood thus sequestering all that nasty carbon. Makes more sense than rocks.
This statement seems to want to make the reader think that there is a difference between CO2 emitted by nature and CO2 emitted by humans. It is the same molecule. CO2 = CO2. This process, or any other, can't tell the difference.
Furthermore, there already are natural process that take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and turn it into rock.
Carbon dioxide from the air dissolves into the water of the ocean. Animals which create seashells take dissolved carbon dioxide in the ocean and combine it with Calcium, creating calcium carbonate seashells. After the organism dies, the shell sinks to the bottom of the ocean. Sometimes there are enough shells that compressed sedimentary rock, limestone and chalk, are formed. The chalk of the "White Cliffs of Dover" were created this way.
This actually isn't a good thing. Once the limestone is made, nothing in nature puts the carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. The Earth used to have a lot more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than it does now, but it has been sequestered into limestone. In about 11 millioin years, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will be used up, and life on Earth will be extinguished.
This solution fails to create a global government or a global tax therefore it’s not a solution.
For “carbon sequestration”, why don’t we just landfill plastic instead of recycling?
Suggest that to a liberal and watch their head explode.
“One approach is Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), where CO2 is physically removed from the atmosphere and trapped underground.”
Too bad that for each CO2 molecule “physically removed” from he atmosphere, probably at least two more molecules of CO2 are released into the atmosphere from the fuels burned to generate the energy it took to “physically remove” that first CO2 molecule.
Any correlation between CO2 & Temperature ?
This is a BAD idea. Very, very bad.
The problem is that plants need a certain concentration of CO2 in the air to survive. Above that concentration, plants pull that CO2 from the air and convert it to larger carbon molecules that are necessary for all life to survive. Below that concentration, plants cannot pull the CO2 from the air, and they do not survive. Without plants, nothing else survives, either.
These schemes to pull CO2 from the air and convert it into forms that are unusable by biological life, unfortunately, will not cause visible damage immediately. If such a scheme should go forward before clearer heads (and people who understand the carbon cycle and the fundamental necessity of CO2) put a stop to it, then here is what will happen. As the concentration of CO2 is decreased, the plants that need the highest concentration of CO2 in the air will die off. As they die, their bodies decompose, releasing more CO2 into the air. So far, the actual measured concentration of CO2 won’t change much even as tons of CO2 are destroyed—at the point where the most sensitive plants die off, the concentration will remain somewhat constant. So the clueless zealots work to remove even more CO2 from the air, causing more species of plants to start dying off. And as they die and their bodies decompose, CO2 is released back into the air.
And so on and so on. After many iterations of this process, after several years of converting CO2 to unusable form, some “geniuses” might notice a decrease in plant biomass and extinction of species—without much effect on the atmospheric concentration of CO2. Another effect might be to increase the temperature of the earth; without plants to soak up the solar energy to convert CO2 into more biologically useful molecules (like sugars, fats, and proteins), that energy will soak right into the ground, where it is converted directly into heat.
In any case, as monumentally bad as this idea is, by the time the true believing warmists figure it out, the environmental damage will be extreme.
I think in my profile, I have links to a study that estimated the remaining time left for life on earth, somewhere between 100 million to a billion years left. That is because natural processes sequester CO2 constantly, so that the level of CO2 remaining in the atmosphere is a fraction of what it was when, for example, dinosaurs roamed the earth. And, without humans doing anything at all, that is the time range within which the concentration of CO2 will fall so low that life is no longer possible, based on the current rate of natural carbon sequestration.
These warmist kooks, in their zeal to impose totalitarianism by scaring everyone about CO2, would gladly accelerate the extinction of life on earth in order to impose a primitive life style on people and stop all progress.
Science and technology are so far advanced and advancing so fast that itis just conceivable that in a while they really could freeze out or otherwise precipitate some large segment of CO2 from the atmosphere. Unfortunately knowledge of how the atmosphere works is NOT advancing quickly. Science will reach the point where it can do something drastic and won’t find out the results of doing it until the oceans freeze over or the plants all die.