Watched an interesting show today on the science channel. It featured a CO2 scrubber capable of removing this greenhouse gas from the surrounding atmosphere. In tests, it produced a gross reduction of 80% and a net reduction (after considering it's own engine's contribution to CO2) of close to 60%. The technology is easily adaptable to large scale application and might be a saving technology for China's severe air pollution. Environmental scientists lamented the fact that such technology might remove the concern about fossil fuels, as people might lose their fear of Global warming. I found it very interesting that the environmental scientists were not thrilled with the possibility of reducing the greenhouse gasses. Instead, they fear it will encourage more fossil fuel development. Anti-development mantra by the environmental extremists refuses to accept the possibility that we can continue using fossil fuels while we make a gradual transition to alternative energy. If we CAN reduce the CO2 risk by using scrubbers, do you think we should proceed with offshore drilling and development of other fossil fuel energy resources (natural gas, shale oil, etc)? Or should we abandon fossil fuels despite the possibility of controlling the CO2 emissions?
I think we should use the scrubbers, but continue to research alternate energy sources (While drilling offshore. Why limit ourselves?). That said, how practical are they? You said they were possible on big scale but how exactly do they work? How would that work? Nanites, lol?
No. There are concerns about fossil fuels other than global warming. Frankly I think that the general public doesn't even give a damn about global warming. They care about paying $4 a Gallon for gas. Look at the current US Election. The economy and money always takes center stage in the decision making of societies regardless of other problems they are faced with. Not necessarily a bad thing though. Usually economically strong nations have fewer problems, which has always made me think being economically strong is essential to maintaining a overall prosperous nation. We'd stop using fossil fuels with or without climate change eventually. We've already begun our way down that path and once you start its hard to stop. Rather I would find the reluctance the same thing that makes global warming advocates so annoying. They don't actually care about global warming (some do but many I've met don't). They just want their cause and a reason to complain about something. Most people are like that; they like having a cause for various reasons and can be very fickle about it. If this were to happen their cause would disappear and they'd either fade away or have to change (neither of which will appeal to them because they like having their cause. They're happy to speak of change but actual change scares them because once it happens they have zip). Frankly their being silly.
