Tags for This Article:

World (943)  Other (737)  Future (592)  Global Warming (529)  Population (270)  Nature (260)  Climate Change (194)  Climate Change (158)  Global Warming (116)  Environment Global Accords (76)  Greenhouse Emissions (57)  Globalism (56)  Decline (52)  Carbon Emissions (34)  Climate Change Deniers (32)  Global Outreach (10)  Fuel-free (5) 

Populum Tag Cloud
       Control Panel
Fine tune your search to access content
Articles
Diaries Products
Events All
All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs
From:
Month  Day   Year

To:
Month  Day   Year
Alphabet
Popularity
Count ON
Count OFF
This Level
Sub-levels

 

 

 

Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Add to My Group
April 8, 2008 at 05:45:36

Turning a curse into a blessing: CO2 can be harvested profitably from the air

by Brad Arnold     Page 1 of 1 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com


Tell A Friend

At the current trajectory, the carrying capacity of the Earth is going to rapidly decline. One of the most pressing issues is the elevated level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air.

By 2015 we will have about 3 Watts (per square meter) of forcing, which will elevate the temperature about 2 degrees Centigrade by mid-century. It takes around 50 years for CO2 emitted now to fully warm us, so we’ve incurred a very large future warming commitment. In other words, by mid-century America’s climate will likely be similar to Iraq now, and it will only get worse.
 
The current paradigm is to lower the CO2 level in the air by cutting emissions, with nature removing the excess.
 
The problem is carbon sinks are becoming carbon emitters as we warm, far outpacing our emission cuts. Nature removes about half of our CO2 emissions each year now, but carbon sinks are becoming saturated, significantly degrading nature’s ability to remove CO2 from the air. Furthermore, natural greenhouse gas emissions are dramatically increasing due to warming.
 
Besides, a rapidly growing population and world economy is unlikely to cut emissions so fast and drastically that we avoid either ecosystem collapse (abrupt climate change), or natural emissions going out of control (runaway global warming).
 
"Processes that would normally regulate climate are being driven to amplify warming. Such feedbacks, as well as the inertia of the Earth system — and that of our response — make it doubtful that any of the well-intentioned technical or social schemes for carbon dieting will (work). What is needed is a fundamental cure." --Dr James Lovelock
 
There is a way to harvest the CO2 from the air profitably: naturally evolved organisms that eat the CO2 and excrete fuel. Ironically, the limiting factor in the rate of biological fuel production is the low amount of CO2 in the air.

This is a paradigm shift from excess CO2 in the air being a great liability, to it being an asset (fuel stock).

We can live with a temporarily elevated level of atmospheric carbon (until it can be converted to fuel or food) by using the extremely low cost simple scheme of putting a small amount of aerosol into the upper atmosphere to dim the sun.

Currently, very expensive greenhouse gas emission cuts are being prescribed to lower the CO2 level of the air. Not only won’t that scheme work, but the great expense is unnecessary. On our present trajectory, there will be famine, war, pestilence, and death in the near future as the carrying capacity of the Earth rapidly declines

We need to start treating CO2 in the air as an asset to harvest.

Brad Arnold
www.myspace.com/dobermanmacleod
dobermantmacleod@aol.com

 

Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
We need to start treating CO2 in the air as an asset to harvest

Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers

http://www.myspace.com/dobermanmacleod

National Master at chess. Mensa member.

Contact Author
Contact Editor
View Other Articles by Author

 

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

NETSCAPE      DIGG THIS      NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Spurl      Tag!RawSugar      Shadows Tag!      Blink List     (More...)
Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
2 comments

I am a chemist and able to contribute to the debate about thermite.
gravity32I am a chemist and able to contribute to the debate about thermite.

get it right

(a) there is no scientific proof that the globe is warming. (please click that).

(b) we are already harvesting the CO2. It is indisputable that higher levels of CO2 increase the growth rate of plants. It is after all one of the three main things they need to grow: water, sunlight and CO2.

We could be on the cusp of the next ice-age so don't stuff the atmosphere with aerosols.

by gravity32 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 140 comments) on Thursday, April 10, 2008 at 1:51:42 AM
 


National Master at chess. Mensa member.
Brad ArnoldNational Master at chess. Mensa member.

I agree: get it right

Although warming seems to have taken a break, it is very unlikely that this trend will continue with the rapid increase in greenhouse gas forcing.  Any rational conversation should be based upon the following IPCC findings:

1. It is "unequivocal" that global warming is occurring.

2. The probability this is caused by natural climatic processes is less than 5%.

3. The probability this is caused by human emissions is over 90%.

Furthermore, while photosynthesis does turn CO2 into carbohydrates, I am referring to 4th generation fuel production (  http://www.exchangemagazine.com/morningpost/2008/week14/Tuesday/040101.html ), which turns the CO2 directly into fuel, and where the availability of CO2 is the limiting factor in fuel production.

Besides, there is scientific evidence that high CO2 levels in the air will not help plant growth much ( http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021206075233.htm ).

Finally, using the geoengineering technique of dimming the sun using high altitude aerosol would be moronic if the Earth was not warming.  Luckily, cooling is immediate with that technique, so could be deployed when warming got serious.

I hope everyone can agree that the question of wheither the Earth is seriously warming can be factually established in the future, and that there will still be time (before ecosystems collapse) to cool us down. 

by Brad Arnold (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments) on Thursday, April 10, 2008 at 5:19:41 AM
 

 

2 comments

 

Tell A Friend

 


Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008

 

 

 

 

Articles
Diaries Members
Products Events
Polls  
  

Articles Popularity:

Momentum Building For Bugliosi's Case Against George W. Bush For Murder
by Linda Milazzo

Bush Fulfills His Grandfather's Dream
by David Swanson

A Declaration of Independence from the Government of the United States
by Anonymous

The Perfect Storm from Hell
by Lord Stirling

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN GAS REACHES 7 DOLLARS A GALLON ?
by Allen L Roland

Fortis Prediction of US Bank Meltdown a Net Hoax: The Making of an Urban Legend
by Paul Haughey

POW/MIA Families Alleged McCain Assault: Senate Ethics Committee Failed to Investigate
by elliot cohen

Why were 'first responders' de-contaminated at the Pentagon?
by Len Hart

Ex Weapons Inspector: Iran Not Pursuing Nukes, But U.S. Will Attack Before '09
by Jason Leopold

Raw milk and the government/corporate effort to crush it
by Linn Cohen-Cole