a great way of reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, especially when used in conjunction with carbon filters which collect 90% of CO2 emissions from smokestack industries.
Granted, there would have to be millions of these to make a dent, but they are definitely part of the solution. Or they would be if this were really about reducing carbon dioxide and saving the planet from global catastrophe.
The environmentalists should applaud this technology and welcome it to the battle. Instead, it is dismissed and condemned because it allows us to maintain our current lifestyles:
“There’s no magic bullet to save us from the problem of global warming,” said Kert Davies, an energy expert for Greenpeace USA in Washington, D.C. Removing greenhouse gases so readily will not encourage people to develop alternate, renewable technologies, he said, and strive for energy efficiency.
Such techno-fixes also miss the point of the environmental degradation brought on by the use of fossil fuels, he said.
Lackner told the Telegraph, â€œIâ€™d rather have a technology that allows us to use fossil fuels without destroying the planet, because people are going to use them anyway.â€
Not necessarily, Professor. If some powerful environmentalists had their way, we would all be controlled by carbon. As I noted before, more than once politicians have suggested we become tethered to individual carbon limits, set by governments who have our best interests in mind, of course.
The idea has also been derided as folly because of the cost and the number of filters needed. Kert Davies asked in the link above, “Can you imagine thousands of acres of giant fly swatters across the land?”
Actually, I can. Right here. And it could easily pay for itself over time, because right in the middle of all those acres of carbon trapping flyswatters, I would put “bioreactors” that use sequestered carbon dioxide to grow algae