Paffle.com Blog -- Sequestering Carbon Dioxide is Dangerous

Paffle.com	Paffle.com Blog -- Sequestering Carbon Dioxide is Dangerous
Global Warming & Climate Change Sequestering Carbon Dioxide is Dangerous The Sea Level won't rise! (..much) Introduction (Background): What Are "We" Doing Wrong? Ill-considered Remedies and Hysteria: Conclusion: Apocalyptic Floods, Storms Climate-Gate	Sequestering Carbon Dioxide is Dangerous Sequestering carbon dioxide is a technology inviting catastrophic environmental damage. In the UK, they are building at least three new coal-fired power stations(ref ^# 1 2009). However, to be "green", they are going to trap the carbon dioxide released and sequester it underground (ref ^# 1 and preceding). If you value the planet Earth and want to leave a legacy for your children/grandchildren etc that you can live with, please spread the word... SEQUESTERING CARBON DIOXIDE IS DANGEROUS. IT REMOVES PRECIOUS OXYGEN FROM THE AIR. If carbon dioxide is let to go back into the atmosphere, it may warm the planet a little but nature Will naturally restore the balance and photosynthesis Will restore the oxygen back into the atmosphere. IF SEQUESTERING STARTS ON THE PLANNED SCALE, WE WILL REDUCE THE OXYGEN COUNT IN THE ATMOSPHERE WITH HUGE REPERCUSSIONS FOR MANKIND AND UTTERLY UNKNOWN IMPLICATIONS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. There are some scientists who seem intent on joining a bureaucratic bandwagon trying to make money out of scaring people into paying taxes to keep such scientists in jobs -- without knowing or caring or understanding what damage they do. The percentage of oxygen in the air is very small and it wouldn't take much to catastrophically destabilise the balance. CO2 is the result of burning carbon (ie: fuel) whereby oxygen from the atmosphere is joined with the carbon in a chemical reaction that gives off heat. Thus, the 2 Oxygen atoms (O2) are taken from the atmosphere, not from the fuel. Photosynthesis is a perfectly good way of removing carbon from the atmosphere whilst safely restoring the oxygen to the atmosphere. Richard Dawkins is one of the few who has written about the general misunderstanding about how photosynthesis works. Myth: trees take CO2 from the atmosphere and return oxygen -- truth: trees usually die, rot and return all the CO2 back to the atmosphere. Observation: because there is more CO2 in the atmosphere just now, plant life is flourishing round the globe -- in short, nature is restoring the balance. Factually-based solution: if you want to very quickly remove Carbon (not CO2) from the atmosphere permanently, bury plant waste (so Carbon can't be joined to Oxygen and released back to the atmosphere). Note: this is like returning oil back underground as it was in the first place -- and this is why, as Dawkins notes, there is the healthy atmospheric imbalance we have now -- ie: oxygen is an imbalance because there was no oxygen in the atmosphere billions of years ago. The simplest solution? Allow plant life on planet Earth to continue to thrive -- it doesn't have to be buried as long as more of it is allowed to exist at any one time. This will restore moisture to the atmosphere, create the environment we need, re-cool the planet, etc. Rainforest preservation is an obvious example. What we must never do is remove both the carbon AND the oxygen from the atmosphere. Miscellaneous... Did you know? A huge volcano such as Krakatoa can release vast quantities of carbon dioxide dwarfing anything than man does. Did you know? The sea level will not rise more than a few millimetres (as per researched and referenced blogg, below or http://www.paffle.com ) -- and is now predicted to fall again due to decreased sun activity^# *1. On other proposals.. Wind Energy is an inefficient blight on open space essential to tourism (5% of GDP in UK ) and recreation Biomass Fuels are okay but will deplete food resource landmass and are inefficient (much escapes to atmosphere as CO2 during refinement) Solar Energy is okay but unnecessarily messy Geothermal Heat is okay but usually prohibitively expensive and, like oil, is unreplenishable (cooling it may even have unforeseen consequences) Nuclear Power is dangerous but still relatively clean (waste is manageable despite obvious concerns). --//-- Next Topics: The Sea Level won't rise! (..much)

Paffle.com

Global Warming & Climate Change

Sequestering Carbon Dioxide is Dangerous

The Sea Level won't rise! (..much)

Introduction (Background):

What Are "We" Doing Wrong?

Ill-considered Remedies and Hysteria:

Conclusion:

Apocalyptic Floods, Storms

Climate-Gate

Sequestering Carbon Dioxide is Dangerous

Sequestering carbon dioxide is a technology inviting catastrophic environmental damage.

In the UK, they are building at least three new coal-fired power stations(ref ^# *1 2009). However, to be "green", they are going to trap the carbon dioxide released and sequester it underground (ref ^# *1 and preceding).
If you value the planet Earth and want to leave a legacy for your children/grandchildren etc that you can live with, please spread the word...
SEQUESTERING CARBON DIOXIDE IS DANGEROUS. IT REMOVES PRECIOUS OXYGEN FROM THE AIR. If carbon dioxide is let to go back into the atmosphere, it may warm the planet a little but nature Will naturally restore the balance and photosynthesis Will restore the oxygen back into the atmosphere. IF SEQUESTERING STARTS ON THE PLANNED SCALE, WE WILL REDUCE THE OXYGEN COUNT IN THE ATMOSPHERE WITH HUGE REPERCUSSIONS FOR MANKIND AND UTTERLY UNKNOWN IMPLICATIONS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT.
There are some scientists who seem intent on joining a bureaucratic bandwagon trying to make money out of scaring people into paying taxes to keep such scientists in jobs -- without knowing or caring or understanding what damage they do.
The percentage of oxygen in the air is very small and it wouldn't take much to catastrophically destabilise the balance. CO2 is the result of burning carbon (ie: fuel) whereby oxygen from the atmosphere is joined with the carbon in a chemical reaction that gives off heat. Thus, the 2 Oxygen atoms (O2) are taken from the atmosphere, not from the fuel.
Photosynthesis is a perfectly good way of removing carbon from the atmosphere whilst safely restoring the oxygen to the atmosphere. Richard Dawkins is one of the few who has written about the general misunderstanding about how photosynthesis works.
Myth: trees take CO2 from the atmosphere and return oxygen -- truth: trees usually die, rot and return all the CO2 back to the atmosphere.
Observation: because there is more CO2 in the atmosphere just now, plant life is flourishing round the globe -- in short, nature is restoring the balance.
Factually-based solution: if you want to very quickly remove Carbon (not CO2) from the atmosphere permanently, bury plant waste (so Carbon can't be joined to Oxygen and released back to the atmosphere).
Note: this is like returning oil back underground as it was in the first place -- and this is why, as Dawkins notes, there is the healthy atmospheric imbalance we have now -- ie: oxygen is an imbalance because there was no oxygen in the atmosphere billions of years ago.

The simplest solution? Allow plant life on planet Earth to continue to thrive -- it doesn't have to be buried as long as more of it is allowed to exist at any one time. This will restore moisture to the atmosphere, create the environment we need, re-cool the planet, etc. Rainforest preservation is an obvious example.

What we must never do is remove both the carbon AND the oxygen from the atmosphere.

Miscellaneous...

Did you know? A huge volcano such as Krakatoa can release vast quantities of carbon dioxide dwarfing anything than man does.
Did you know? The sea level will not rise more than a few millimetres (as per researched and referenced blogg, below or http://www.paffle.com ) -- and is now predicted to fall again due to decreased sun activity^# *1.
On other proposals..
Wind Energy is an inefficient blight on open space essential to tourism (5% of GDP in UK ) and recreation
Biomass Fuels are okay but will deplete food resource landmass and are inefficient (much escapes to atmosphere as CO2 during refinement)
Solar Energy is okay but unnecessarily messy
Geothermal Heat is okay but usually prohibitively expensive and, like oil, is unreplenishable (cooling it may even have unforeseen consequences)
Nuclear Power is dangerous but still relatively clean (waste is manageable despite obvious concerns).

--//--

Sequestering Carbon Dioxide is Dangerous

Next Topics:

The Sea Level won't rise! (..much)