First you have to demonstrate a problem which hasn't been done in spite of shrill cries from alarmists. After you demonstrate a risk, then you have to propose a solution, and show it works. Will they whine about minor earthquakes caused by CO2 injection? The bottom line is you have to show that the cost is reasonable to provide the desired result.
I don't like the idea of trying to sequester CO2 deep in the ground. First of all, I am skeptical it is permanent. I think there are lots of reasons. It can be used to enhance oil production but that isn't going to sequester anything. As a geologist, I understand that oil reservoirs are not permanent traps. They are more like a dam in a river. A river dam traps a great deal of water but eventually, that water that doesn't evaporate, goes over the spillway to continue down the river and stratigraphic traps typically work in a similar way. In the case of oil, it continues its upward migration.
The ocean precipitates carbonates as it has been doing for billions of years. I think that is the best answer I know of. Let the Ocean continue to precipitate excess CO2. If it ever becomes a problem, which it appears is very unlikely, then we could deal with it then.
I tend to agree with Baccheous about the "Fools". They were real big when they were pushing all the tech stocks until the internet bubble but they continued as "experts" but I never took much "stock" in what they claimed.
Deniers are most often Religious Fundamentalists, or if they aren't particularly religious, they are at least influenced by the ideals of Religious Fundamentalists.
Conservatives are often conspiracy freaks.
Corporations/ Big Oil/Koch Bros, fund studies to fool people into thinking Global Warming isn't real, mankind can't be part of it, Co2 isn't a pollutant and so on, because They will stop making billion dollar profits.
The Denier Movement is part of the Conservative Movement and it is a danger to life on Earth.
http://www.salon.com/2014/08/06/conserva...
This is the only answer to the problem, according to the UN.
Quote from the UN's Own "Agenda 21": "Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level."
Let us just say that AGW was real. And that this CO2 capture would cure it. The greenies still would not be satisfied or they would dream up a new catastrophe.
Quote by Club of Rome: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose."
I'd say to quit paving paradise, and plant more tree's, and no more building on the land we have left. Doing more towards reconstruction of what is there, sitting empty. A more moderate using of the oil, rather than stockpiling and shipping across the oceans. Every country has a sufficient amount naturally that the earth expels to use in the locations that need it, because we have alternatives to that in the form of sun, wind, and water. I don't think nuclear energy is the way to go because of the structure they have to employ it, isn't correct yet. Causing fall-out hazards, so until that's not a high risk, keep working on it.
It's the Sun that drives climate, not CO2.
Top climate scientists say there is no man-made Global Warming.
The Great Global Warming Swindle
I dont like the idea of sequestering CO2 as that is also sequestering oxygen, I much prefer to let trees and vegetation convert it into carbon and oxygen, sequester the carbon if you wish.
What do you mean by answer?
The site shows a good reason to WISH that CO2 emission was not bad for the globe.
It is one idea. The "best" answer is "many" such good ideas.
But then I don't have much faith in Motley Fool. This article is interesting, but ultimately it is an ad for their stock-picking service. I subscribed for one year but very quickly realized that their investment history was not as good as my own without them. They do a great job of promoting a reputation as knowledge-based stock-pickers that is not justified by their actual record. The story was written by a young stock-picker and his blurring of oil and natural gas is indicative of his just wanting to publish an insightful-sounding article to enhance your trust in his stock-picking, rather than to actually research a truly knowledgeable and insightful essay. Take it as an interesting idea but don't put too much faith in Motley Fool for accuracy; understand their purpose.
Alarmist utopia would apply all recovered hydrocarbons toward hydrocarbon independence.
Such utopia would remove Big Oil's preeminence. Big Oil will fight this independence, in favor of economic advantage.
Bast answer to co2 warming??? Convince *everyone* there is more economic value in hydrocarbon independence.
Hey - If you hate oil companies, build more nuclear power plants. Simple answer.
No. It puts more CO2 into the atmosphere, even if it does bury some. And who's to say that the CO2 that they buried will stay buried?
HOWEVER, we sure are glad that you now admit that CO2 should be addressed. Thanks.
Yes. presently CO2 warming so far.
