Instead of giving up our cars, says the August issue of National Geographic, we can simply scrub the skies of CO2. The article describes a process of removing carbon from the atmosphere that is technologically feasible. Though it is hard to guess how expensive it will be, the article suggests it will be a lot cheaper than dramatically altering the way we live.
“Jet travel would become guilt free again,” reports the magazine. “We could keep our cars and gas stations–no need for a whole new hydrogen- or electric-powered infrastructure. Subversive thought: We could keep our lifestyles.” Interesting that they think the status quo is subversive.
You all must have heard about female menopause, cialis generika 5mg but many of you are not well-known about male menopause. The capsule aids tadalafil 20mg cipla to get relief from sexual complexity and make better the performance during sexual climax. It is a relatively recent addition buy viagra soft to the different body parts in blocked. Apart from improving the physical health of person, enhancing immune system, preventing cialis online usa pamelaannschoolofdance.com type 2 diabetes are increased thirst, hunger, fatigue, healing of infections very slowly, increased urination, erectile dysfunction, blurred vision and numbness in the hands or feet may be additional early symptoms.
“That’s historically what we’ve done,” says physicist Klaus Lackner. “We’ve run into environmental issues that seemed insurmountable–and we’ve found a solution.” The Antiplanner doesn’t necessarily endorse the scrubbing process described in the article, but does endorse the sentiment that there are less-expensive ways of solving problems than trying to force people to give up their mobility. The most interesting point is that this is coming from a mainstream magazine that has had a strong environmental bent in recent years.
Instead of wasting energy compressing and pumping it underground, lets do something useful with it:
Spend even more energy to pull out the carbon and use it as a feedstock for carbon neutral liquid motor fuels.
Of course the better course of action is to welcome the improved agricultural productivity from more CO2. Especially since it has never been shown to cause global warming as far as I can tell. (I you want to claim otherwise, note that all the IPCC report claims is that we cannot figure out a cause for the alleged warming, so it must be due to man’s CO2)
Thanks
JK
Sorry, JK, you are clearly not up on your climatology. Do a literature search on carbon dioxide and global climate. The connection is so well established it is no longer even being debated within the scientific community. It is simple physics. It would be sort of like debating gravity. Carbon dioxide is not the only driver of climate change, but it is a clear factor. That leaves as an open question whether or not current climate change is anthropogenic, but the evidence is coming in.
Of course, the real problem with the “carbon scrubbing” mentioned by the Antiplanner in the article is that it isn’t profitable. Sure, we could devote lots of resources to scrubbing the atmosphere…and the second we do, the Antiplanner will be here telling us what a huge waste it is. Because no matter how cheap it is, it won’t be free and it certainly won’t make a profit.
Sorry, but there’s nothing to warm to the Antiplanner’s money-grubbing heart in this story.
Antiplanner,
I imagine the author was being sarcastic in referring to the status quo as subversive.
Deranged fantasies, Adam, that are woefully ignorant of basic physics notwithstanding, the EROEI is way out of whack with this scheme. In addition to it not being profitable without subsidy.
Recent work has shown that simply removing the vast fossil fool subsidies would result in a (IIRC) 6% savings immediately, more over time as renewables and efficiency gains expand. Pricing carbon appropriately will push us down the road much faster than waiting for CCS to be somewhere close to scale. Socolow and Pacala rely only on a small fraction of the solution set with CCS, anyway.
So the silly Business As Usual peal is still a non-starter, wishes and fantasies notwithstanding.
And using this technological solution as an argument for policy or solutioning, but rejecting others is simply silly. Or indicative of denial. Either way.
DS
I don’t feel the least amount of guilt about spewing CO2. It is a pre-requisite for plant life and therefore for all life on earth. I feel that I am helping all living creatures when I drive my car down the road.
Jardinero1,
Was that a joke?
OF course the talking point is a joke. Why else would you use it?
DS
No, I wasn’t joking. Pick up an elementary plant biology textbook and read the first chapter.
Climate change, no matter what the cause are only cause for alarm for economic man and his society not for life on the planet.
By the way, the best CO2 scrubbers are grass, plants and trees. They can be had at any garden center, priced to fit any budget.
“I feel that I am helping all living creatures when I drive my car down the road.”
You position ignores the mountains of evidence of the negative impacts of roads on wildlife, in particular large predators. What about smog? Roadkill? If you live in Phoenix, buying sod might not be helping the planet.
Look, I drive a lot. I’m not going to argue that driving is somehow unjust, but I’m also not naive about the problems associated with driving. Honestly I’m confounded by Jardinero1’s logic. This type of thinking can justify anything and everything.
Pick up an elementary plant biology textbook and read the first chapter.
I have one. You are wrong in context. The FACE experiments show how the parroted talking point is false. Sorry you were duped into believing that.
The ‘CO2 is life’ meme was refuted years ago. That doesn’t stop the small fringe from recycling it, of course, to claim BAU is duh bomb and to continue their wish that nothing in their life has to change despite the facts of reality.
Nor does reality stop corporations from funding shills to assert that we don’t have to change.
DS
I am a large predator. I don’t worry about the welfare of other predators lest I become their prey.
Humans butcher tens of billions of animals per year, to eat, and you are worried about coyotes and cougars getting hit by cars? Explain the logic to me.
Put another way:
Nature has systems that can mitigate CO2 emissions and “I am helping all living creatures when I drive my car down the road,” are not even close to one and the same.
Dan are asserting that CO2 is not a prerequisite for life on earth?
Bennett, Large cities in the desert, like Phoenix make no sense ecologically or economically. They only exist because of massive public expentiture on projects like the Glen Canyon and Hoover Dams and the Interstate Highway system. Most damage to our natural environment is the result of mis-guided and government subsidized economic development schemes. CO2 emmissions are a drop in the bucket in comparison. I say stop, or better still, reverse the subsidy to such places. Why should the rest of us subsidize environmental degradation?
“Humans butcher tens of billions of animals per year, to eat, and you are worried about coyotes and cougars getting hit by cars? Explain the logic to me.”
You’ve missed my point. I’m not “worried.” I’m finding it hard to believe that someone, in the same breath, says they are engaging in something that they believes helps every living thing in the world, even though they don’t care about living things outside of themselves.
Not to mention that driving, the infrastructure for driving, the extraction of resources for driving, and the consumption of said resources has many adverse impacts on many living things. This is obvious. My logic is clear as glass. Driving has, does and will continue to have negative impacts on various living things. I can’t explain it any more straightforward than that.
Dan: Let’s price carbon higher; of course I am an educated and well-paid planner who will be able to continue going on Jeep joyrides in the Rockies. The poor? Oh well. They can stick to the inner city cores and walk.
Speaking of joyrides. The Blue Angles are disturbing my vacation flying all over this city burning tons of fossil fuel on their joyrides. Let’s not forget that the number one consumer of petroleum in the United States is the federal government; the military alone consumes more oil per year than Ireland. But McDonnell Douglas (Boeing), er, uh, I mean the government, will continue frivolously burning oil to lubricate their propaganda machine.
And that one more reason why the federal government will never be an effective environmental steward.
It’s going to take a grassroots revolution.
And those who live in suburbs and drive Jeeps shouldn’t be throwing stones.
Dan are asserting that CO2 is not a prerequisite for life on earth?
I am saying you don’t understand the carbon cycle nor the adaptation speed of the kingdom Plantae. Or the implications of the findings in the links I provided.
DS
“Nor does reality stop corporations from funding shills to assert that we don’t have to change.”
From the FACE link: “The Illinois Council for Food and Agricultural Research, Archer Daniels Midland Co., the USDA and U. of I. Experiment Station funded the research.”
Nor does reality stop corporations (and governments) from funding shills to assert the sky is falling.
Yup. Vaaast conspir’cy ever’buddeh! A millllyun Yew-En “scahhhn-tists” been tryin’ to sap the fraydum from th’ god fearin conservative white man! Take our country back! or something.
chuckle
At least Randal is acknowledging society has moved on and is discussing adaptation and mitigation. Is discussing the formulation of policy away from “polluter pays”, and instead toward action based on untested and low EROEI technologies with a long time horizon a non-starter or not, esp when deployment of several wedges is possible today for a bigger gain at far lower cost?
We report, you decide.
DS
I’m trying to figure out how news of global warming would benefit Archer Daniel’s Midland. They have fought several lawsuits in which they are accused of polluting the air, so that must be…wait, no, that would mean they don’t want global warming. They’re heavily into agriculture, so maybe…no, that would also mean they don’t want global warming. Hmm…..
I wholeheartedly agree with Jardinero1. CO2 is the stuff of life. The more of it the better! So is water, for that matter. That is why all those living in Pakistan right now must be so grateful for all the flooding.
The FACE study poured ozone over the plants. That is why yields fell.
Dan, you continue to mischaracterize. Weak.
The unfortunate thing about climate change is that it has usurped other environmental issues. I rarely make climate change arguments and avoid them most of the time, but the environmental impact of our lifestyle choices goes way beyond climate change. How about the plant and animal species that were lost due to our land-consumptive ways? I’ve always felt that’s way more of an issue than climate change.
Agreed, ws. Garbage/waste and pollution are far more pressing issues IMO.
Adam said: Sorry, JK, you are clearly not up on your climatology. Do a literature search on carbon dioxide and global climate. The connection is so well established it is no longer even being debated within the scientific community.
JK: Then you will have no problem showing us that evidence. Note that even Phil Jones could only say the equivalent of “we can’t figure out what is causing warming, so it must be man’s CO2″ That is the best the IPCC has. Caveman logic assigning a god to the unknown. You are showing your ignorance on the whole field. I suggest reading up a bit at http://www.SustainableOregon.com
Adam said: It is simple physics. It would be sort of like debating gravity.
JK: Atmospheric science simple physics??? That you make such a naive statement shows your total ignorance of science. (BTW, they are still investigating gravity to try to figure out just what it is. You are showing your ignorance again.)
Adam said: Carbon dioxide is not the only driver of climate change, but it is a clear factor.
JK: But you just said the connection between CO2 and climate is so well established, it is no longer being debated. Which is it?
Adam said: That leaves as an open question whether or not current climate change is anthropogenic, but the evidence is coming in.
JK: That is the big one. If man isn’t the cause, shutting down modern society will not help a single polar bear or glacier. It will only help make Al Gore & his Wall Street conspirators richer.
Thanks
JK
Surely we should take seriously someone who asserts that such a gas can be ‘poured’ at room temperature or that an open-air experiement ‘poured’ O3 on plants instead of testing plant response in projected future atmospheric conditions. We should ensure such people are in the middle of the highest-level policy discussions.
We should also ensure high-level placement of people who continually distract away from any solution where the polluter pays, or who grasps at expensive, untested technologies with long time horizons instead of cheaper, available, ‘shovel-ready’ policies.
Yes, we should definitely include such folk in the civil discourse. What could go wrong?
DS
@JK: You aren’t reading what I actually write. The absorption spectra of greenhouse gasses are extremely well-documented. The notion that CO2 has a role in climate is simply beyond dispute, and yes, it is simple physics. And yes, the connection between CO2 and climate can be very clear without it being the only driver of climate changes. I don’t need to choose between them.
If you want further reading, here’s just one possible reference from The American Institute of Physics. That’s a lot of reading, but if you’re interested, I’m sure you’ll take a look.
Even the notion that climate change is anthropogenic is rapidly approaching the realm of being beyond realistic dispute. We’re not there, yet, perhaps, but there is a whole lot of evidence in support of that claim. I’m not sure it is wise to ignore the bulk of the evidence.
Thanks for the link to the Sustainable Oregon website. I encourage you to critically evaluate the assertions that are made there. Most of the rhetorical techniques used on that site are transparently amateurish. I would recommend getting your science from the scientific literature and the people who are trained in critical reasoning. For the most part, those folks are smarter than both of us.
but the environmental impact of our lifestyle choices goes way beyond climate change. How about the plant and animal species that were lost due to our land-consumptive ways?
These are all part of the same problem set, arising from consumption and population growth. Part of the solution set for reversing environmental decline is lessening the pollution burden to slow the decreasing resilience of ecosystems.
You cannot separate out man-made climate change from consumption when addressing policy. If you want to have markets help with the solution set, you need clear market signals for decision-making, and that means pricing pollution and somehow eliminating corporate lies and obfuscation campaigns to obstruct good decision-making.
———–
Adam @ 29:
@JK: You aren’t reading what I actually write.
That arises from cognitive dissonance and is the norm. Get used to it. HTH.
——–
DS
Dan, in the experiment they added CO2 and they added O3. They attributed the drop in yield to the O3. I don’t know why they added 03. Ground level O3 is only found in significant concentrations in urban areas not rural ones where they grow crops.
I don’t know why they added 03.
It was explained in the link.
Ground level O3 is only found in significant concentrations in urban areas not rural ones where they grow crops.
No.* There is, f’r instance, significant damage to conifers in the Sierra* and to crops from LL O3.
Basic. Known for years now.
DS
*http://www.ars.usda.gov/Main/docs.htm?docid=12462
** http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1568425
Did either of you actually read Stephen Long’s Science paper? You know, the one that Dan originally cited? If you had, you would know that the CO2 and O3 portions of the experiment were conducted separately, and that the reason that O3 was studied – at least, according to the authors of the paper – is because…well, let me just quote directly from the paper:
Note that the predicted increases of O3 are in rural areas. Feel free to dispute their methodology, but if you do, I would expect citations to credible scientific sources.
Dan, Did the study on the soybeans control for the increase in use of Monsanto, genetically modified, herbicide resistant soybeans? It looks like they were comparing current yields of a monolithic Monsanto soybean crop to historic yields of more varied soybean crops. Also because of the dominance of Monsanto soybeans, an enormous amount of herbicide is applied to soybeans today, that was not the norm just twenty years ago. The herbicide will affect yields even if the soybeans are considered herbicide resistant.
Jardinero, your question means nothing (besides highlighting the fact you didn’t read the study or that you cannot understand it), and has already been pre-bunked.
Nonetheless, to reiterate, LL O3 already damages crops to the tune of $Bns/yr in the US. It will increase in the future. LL O3 offsets any physiological gains in atm CO2 concentrations (as does decreased pan evap due to more episodic precipitation).
This is utterly basic knowledge. This is why claims of ‘Business As Usual is grrrreat!!’ are disingenuous at best, and certainly dangerous.
Honest discussion of policy options don’t include continuation of harm.
DS
Dan, Ok so what did you read in the study that indicated that the soybeans in the study were wholly Monsanto gm soybeans and the historical yield they compared it to was not and how they controlled for comparing the two? Or how all the gm soybeans are cultivated with a no till method and the historic yields utilized a till regime. Or how much more herbicides are applied today than during the comparison periods and how they controlled for that? You have to control for these things before you can chalk any reduction in yield to O3. There are other studies that say the reduction in yield is a function of the gm soybean itself.
http://www.soilassociation.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=OAhlGQ2Bf8Q%3D&tabid=197
The links I provided already addressed these “concerns”.
The literature is robust with respect to the issues surrounding specious claims like ‘CO2: we call it life’ or increasing atm concs will increase crop production and make earth Eden again. Most policymakers know this is hogwash. As do most people.
Thanks!
DS
spam queue.
Adam: If you want further reading, here’s just one possible reference from The American Institute of Physics. That’s a lot of reading, but if you’re interested, I’m sure you’ll take a look.
JK: I didn’t ask for a reading assignment, I asked for simple proof that man’s CO2 is causing climate change. It appears that you, like all the others, have no proof.
Adam: Even the notion that climate change is anthropogenic is rapidly approaching the realm of being beyond realistic dispute.
JK: Lets see your proof! Other wise you are just repeating Al Gore’s lies.
Adam: Thanks for the link to the Sustainable Oregon website. I encourage you to critically evaluate the assertions that are made there. Most of the rhetorical techniques used on that site are transparently amateurish.
JK: Which parts did you find “transparently amateurish�
* The New York times articles about the coming ice age?
*The New York time articles about the arctic melting to the point a ship could navigate the Northwest Passage – in 1905?
* The emails from the world’s top climate “scientists†asking others to commit the crime of destroying emails subject to a FOA request?
* The emails from the world’s top climate “scientists†discussing how to hide the decline which refers to covering up the fact that the basic data in Al Gore’s hockey stick is unreliable?
* The emails from the world’s top climate “scientists†saying the world quit warming years ago.
* The BBC interview of IPCC lead author where he said the world quit warming in 1995 and has been cooling since 2002 and the recent warming was at the same rate as earlier warmigs, before man emitted much CO2?
* The survey of meteorologists that found 75% did NOT think warming was man caused.
* The FACT that man only emits about 3% of the annual CO2.
* The FACT that those ice cores headlined by Al Gore show that CO2 follows, not leads temperature, again showing AL Gore to be a liar.
* The FACT that water vapor, NOT CO2, causes most of the “greenhouse†effect.
* The fact that predicted nations being flooded didn’t occur in 2000 (10 years ago) as predicted in 1989.
*The fact that the IPCC got caught using green propaganda as a peer reviewed source to claim the Himalayan glaciers will soon be gone.
* The fact that Schneider and Gore both said it is OK to lie to the public to panic then into action.
* The fact that Al Gore has made millions with his propaganda and Wall Street dreams of making BILLIONS off of this scare.
* Jim Hansen’s failed prediction of warming.
* The FACT that the temperature data shows today much cooler than the 1930s before “adjustmentsâ€. Some by the above guy that falsely predicted warming.
* The fact that some Greenland Viking settlements are still under ice from the little ice age.
Again, which of these do you consider “transparently amateurish�
Thanks
JK
All of this makes me wonder what your political/financial ulterior motive is Mr.Karlock?
Though we all well know Mr.O’Toole’s political/financial ulterior motive is, to sell more oil, cars & exurban housing.
From Highwayman:
“Though we all well know Mr.O’Toole’s political/financial ulterior motive is, to sell more oil, cars & exurban housing”
Mr. O’Toole is for freedom and choice.
Should people have a choice of where and how they live and how they travel???
Let’s clearly hear from thoes who say no.
Then Mr.O’Toole shouldn’t work against freedom & choice now should he?
Dude, I’m not telling you how to live your life, yet you want other people to live a certain way.
Why are “libertarians” so damn conformist?
Also, keep in mind that suburban trains are not against suburbia!
Let’s clearly hear from thoes who say no.
Actually, the argument from the Reality-Based Community is that the arguments given here by the ideologues limit choice, not as Mr Grattan trys to argue.
One is less free when all one has to choose from is the auto or the auto. Or between SFD or SFD. Or oil dependency and oil dependency. And so on.
DS
I would like to choose a helicopter, jetpack or a flying carpet.
I would also like to choose a hot, disease-free prostitute, for free.
Choices. Yep. That’s want counts. More choices.
Let’s get taxpayers to pay for these things that I want the freedom to choose for me while enjoying stuff & such in those here places, even at extra-medium densities.
The small store that I walk to does not carry enough products. Every block should have a 100,000 sq.ft.store with many products to choose from.
There are people in prison who made choices for others’ property or liberties. Hey, they had choices.
Paying for goods/service or infringing on others is immaterial, long as there’s choice.
Hey, I like that rhetorical style: Ask for proof, refuse to read proof, then claim there is no proof. Well, if not reading proof means it doesn’t exist, then I guess you can’t lose.
Well, let’s just take that one example. The fact that man emits on 3% of the annual CO2 – even if you accept that figure at face value – has essentially no relevance to whether or not that 3% actually makes a difference in climate. As an analogy, think about a pool filled up in the back yard to within an inch or two of being full. Now a storm comes along and dumps in 3 inches. Does it matter where the extra three inches came from? Are the results particularly different than if you simply left the intake on too long? If the system is at capacity, an extra 3% can make an enormous difference.
But then, I wouldn’t expect you to see anything but what you want to see anyway, since you won’t even read relevant links. Let me know when you have decided to have a real conversation.
Scott said: I would like to choose a helicopter, jetpack or a flying carpet.
THWM: Are you trying to say that you want to give your unicorn a hand job?
Adam said: Well, let’s just take that one example. The fact that man emits on 3% of the annual CO2 – even if you accept that figure at face value – has essentially no relevance to whether or not that 3% actually makes a difference in climate. As an analogy, think about a pool filled up in the back yard to within an inch or two of being full. Now a storm comes along and dumps in 3 inches. Does it matter where the extra three inches came from? Are the results particularly different than if you simply left the intake on too long? If the system is at capacity, an extra 3% can make an enormous difference.
But then, I wouldn’t expect you to see anything but what you want to see anyway, since you won’t even read relevant links. Let me know when you have decided to have a real conversation.
THWM: The straw that broke the camel’s back.