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