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.
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?