But the CO2 levels in our atmosphere are 20% higher than 50 years ago
Floffe Send a noteboard - 21/02/2013 08:49:29 AM
Contrary to what you may believe, we actually NEED CO2 in our atmosphere. Remove the CO2 and all the plants (you know, those green things that use sunlight and convert CO2 into oxygen through a process called photosynthesis) die. Shortly after the plants are gone, so are we.
Atmospheric CO2 content is a red herring.
Atmospheric CO2 content is a red herring.
And there's also much more carbon in the seas, as mentioned by Roland. Plus there's no real alternative to oil for transportation yet, so just because we stop adding carbon from coal plants doesn't mean that the levels will plunge.
--- signature starts here ---
I am the Demon of Delightfulness and Sinister Smirkings!
e^(πi)+1=0
identity named after the Terry Pratchett of 18th century mathematics
I am the Demon of Delightfulness and Sinister Smirkings!
e^(πi)+1=0
identity named after the Terry Pratchett of 18th century mathematics
Coal - One of the Cleanest Energy Sources in the World!
- 20/02/2013 09:41:02 PM
1093 Views
I wonder if it could work on other fuels?
- 20/02/2013 10:18:08 PM
790 Views
Uh, not quite...
- 21/02/2013 02:45:03 AM
659 Views
But the CO2 levels in our atmosphere are 20% higher than 50 years ago
- 21/02/2013 08:49:29 AM
882 Views
There's a certain irony to being criticized on this one from that sector
- 21/02/2013 05:37:37 PM
854 Views
It seems pretty dubious. It still produces CO2.
- 21/02/2013 10:02:55 AM
667 Views
The technology is still a big improvement over current methods.
- 21/02/2013 05:01:31 PM
680 Views
Oh, I agree. My point is just that sequestration will remain an issue. *NM*
- 22/02/2013 12:39:25 AM
319 Views
Well dense CO2 is easier to get rid of
- 21/02/2013 06:08:33 PM
648 Views
Pretty sure putting it in the dirt would increase atmospheric levels, though. EDIT: Never mind.
- 22/02/2013 12:40:38 AM
677 Views
Probably too little, too late.
- 21/02/2013 04:09:45 PM
747 Views