I strongly suspect that humans would benefit from more CO2, not less. If there is no good evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2 is harmful (and I know of no such evidence) then there can be no good reason to intervene in energy markets to "capture" CO2. The entire enterprise is based on a swindle

Expand full comment

I agree with Jim Brown. We need more fossil fuels and C02, not less.

Alex, this sounds like an "about-face" on your part. Carbon capture is hideously expensive and completely unnecessary.

Expand full comment

I think he’s just saying there should be zero government subsidies influencing behavior one way or the other

Expand full comment

If you are those that worry about the need for CO2 carbon capture, PLANT A TREE!!!

carbon capture: this has to be the biggest waste to time, energy and resources.

Higher CO2 levels result in a greener planet, plants love it.

If CO2 went from 430 ppm to 860 ppm, there may be a 1 degree increase. AND now one would notice the difference...

ppm 40,000 - we humans exhale this amount with each breath

ppm 5000 - the threshold in submarines and spacecrafts where the 'alarm' sounds.

ppm 4000 - historical evidence over past 100 mil yrs as the high. the earth managed to live with.

ppm 1600 - level of CO2 in an auditorium with 100+ people

ppm 1200 - average commercial green house levels to promote faster growth

ppm 600 - average bedroom w/ door closed

ppm 430 - roughly todays CO2 level

ppm 200 - roughly CO2 levels in the middle of a field of crops.

ppm 180 - historical lows recorded

ppm 150 - PLANTS DIE!!!

Do you get the picture?

Expand full comment