3 ms·
Ah yes, Big Eco. They will surely crush us underfoot along with the struggling Big Oil, which merely lacks the vast resources which would certainly be required
by deciplex 10y ago
Ah yes, Big Eco. They will surely crush us underfoot along with the struggling Big Oil, which merely lacks the vast resources which would certainly be required to refute this obviously bogus science.
- co2isgood 10y agoNo, my friend, the people who are crushed when the rent-seekers come out to play are the poor. That's why it's a bad idea to divert scarce resources in pursuit of worthless (indeed, probably harmful) pursuits like CO2 sequestration.
- nikdaheratik 10y agoWell, I'm not your "friend", pal! But seriously, did you even read the article (or any other ones covering this)? The Iceland corp. also used the technique to remove H2S and other noxious gases released when harvesting the geothermal heat. They decided to study what happened to the CO2 as well and it turned out they came up with something new and interesting. TL;DR: the only people who see this as a "worthless pursuit" are those too blinded by their own political nonsense to even bother looking at the science.
- co2isgood 10y agoWell, pal, H2S and noxious gases were irrelevant to my original point. As applied to innocuous CO2, it may be interesting and new, but is most likely useless. It will likely continue to be touted by rent-seekers (assuming the original developers are not such) who want to make money by pretending that removing a vital trace gas (not the leading greenhouse gas, BTW) from the atmosphere is necessary. I'm the one talking about science; you're the one assuming the point is political. Only tangentially: diverting resources to accomplish an unnecessary and likely harmful aim is not just bad politics, it's deeply unscientific.