Carbon capture: Key green technology shackled by costs

And to think that trees and diatoms in the sea used to do all this for free. But at the same time we overloaded their capacity to do so and acidified the oceans we also launched eradication programs.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-22630815

European regulations currently allow mandated renewable standards to be met by cutting down forests, in order to burn them for fuel, under the theory that doing so is carbon neutral.

At a time when we should be preserving forests, they are actively being cut down in order to be used to fuel power plants, under the guise of going green.

At what point will all these experts start investigating the sustainability of pumping CO2 deep into the earth and also stripping it of the natural substances naturally found within the layers. There is obviously an equilibrium required for the earth to remain a stable formation. As we strip oil, coal and minerals from this planet, who is monitoring the effect this is happening. I am getting sick of reading about a new team of experts appear each week with a new idea on how things should be done. Not once have I heard them discuss the long-term effects on the planet. Do they even consider this important?

This is so stupid on so many levels. Did nobody ever tell them that CO2 is a necessary part of the natural carbon cycle? Without the 0.3% CO2 in the atmosphere, plants would be dead, and so would be. If they really think they need an extra carbon sink, how about planting some trees, instead of burning more oil for ever-more silly artificial "storage" schemes.

How to pay for it? Easy. Cap and trade or carbon taxes. Any country that can get its energy policy into decent shape should be able to make it work.

Here is the deal. Coal is going to be really cheap for a long time. After a while, as gas and oil prices go back up, there will be a price differential between those resources and coal. At some point, the price of coal + carbon capture will be less than the price of gas + carbon tax or oil + carbon tax. That is why clean coal technologies must continue to advance... it is the most likely to spur investment in carbon capture technologies.

Tax fossil fuels. Subsidize sequestration technologies. Japan does both of those vigorously. The US does them too, with about 1% of Japan's enthusiasm.

"Only after man has cut down every tree will he realise he cannot eat money'" This is the absurdity of society! They know global warming and climate change will destroy society and economies around the world, but they refuse to invest in it now. The longer it is left, the greater the cost will be.

Any new building must be built with a "green roof" by law would be a good start. Also re usable recycled plastic shop sticks. Plus toilet paper paper towels and news papers but use 100% recycled material cost could be assisted by government. No ones butt is too good to not use recycled TP i dont care who you are.

Just my opinion/ideas.

Please note that the offshore capture and storage method is exactly how I described in my post 2 days ago (including absorbing into rock, which somebody phoo-phooed). The project I was involved with before Snovit CO2 Solutions as the Dolwin 1 offshore wind turbine project in the North Sea off Germany. There were numerous environmental issues with that project, so to think that wind farms are the answer to all our problems is mistaken. We will need fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. The point is that we need to use many different energy production sources as well as reducing the impact each has on the environment.