digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

See the original image at popularmechanics.com

5 Ways to Fix Global Warming by Stuffing Carbon in the Earth

popularmechanics.com — Scientists admit it will be tough to capture a key greenhouse gas and bury the CO2 in the ground, in rock or underwater. What ’s even tougher for carbon sequestration: figuring out where to store it.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • tuckergrhm, on 06/05/2008, -9/+14And then a decade from now it will seap through the ground as the oceans continue to cause erosion.
    • grumpyrain, on 06/06/2008, -0/+5Most of the additional atmospheric carbon from the past hundred years originated from coal and oil deposits discovered under the land and oceans. Certainly, finding a geologically suitable place to store it is extremely important.
    • ozroy, on 06/06/2008, -0/+5Well tuckergrhm found a problem in 5 seconds that all these really smart scientists who have been working on this for years hadn't thought of, guess we better give up.

      Honestly, did you thinks this hadn't occurred to them? I used to go diving with a guy who works in carbon sequestration, and they try to think about every single possibility. Even the most ridiculously minute possibilities that would not happen in the lifetime of the universe.
    • davidkeithjones, on 06/06/2008, -0/+3What a Homer Simpson solution this is. I smell a Union Carbide incident brewing...
    • JettaMan, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2The solution is this: we will run out of fossil fuels soon - next 100 years. The price is already prohibitively expensive. The free markets are now switching over to electric cars. Nuclear power and hydroelectric will dominate. Problem solved. No need to be wringing our hands, wasting tax dollars and begging for inept government to "fix the problem".
      • Stormwern, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2To stop using fossil fuels would level out global warming, we need to reverse it.
        • JettaMan, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1The earth takes care of that on its own. The earth at one time was much warmer than today, and it "leveled" itself out without human help.
        • Stormwern, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1Yes, and it took 100M years
      • DavidYeah, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1That's all well and good, but we have a slew of misinformation being thrown about that is stunting the market's abiltiy to transition in response to global warming, away from burning fossil fuels.

        Lots of folks don't think its an issue because of people, and I'm suspecting you're among them, that think global warming is nothing but socialist propoganda. If people were making rational decisions, I bet we, as a planet, would be off of carbon fuels in a generation.

        But the denialists insist that nothing is happening, and their concepts are not based on science, but irrational fear of government which they then look to pseudo-science to justify.

        You're tainting the market, which is pretty ironic given the angle of the typical global warming denilst propoganda.
    • Stormwern, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1None of those suggestions are very realistic. What they should do is solve it in the ocean, would increase the growth of algea that would bind it permanently..
    • prometheanspark, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2For a couple of those scenarios that can't happen. Turning the CO2 into limestone will be forever. If we're replacing methane with CO2, the geology has already proven that it can contain methane, and methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 is. We should worry more about methane escaping from gas deposits than CO2 escaping from sequestered areas.

      Last, we really only need to slow down climate change significantly, not stop it. Within 2000 years we'll have another ice age, this interglacial period is already long in the tooth and we really only need to keep human-made climate change smaller than natural climate change to be able to avoid feeling guilty about the extinctions and climate problems that are bound to occur. Ice ages generally last around 100,000 years, during the greenhouse effect will probably be welcome, so we really only need to successfully sequester the CO2 until the next ice age. Likely within 500 years we'll have more practical geo-engineering solutions to the climate as well, not to mention a much greater understanding of the natural variability of the climate based on centures of detailed monitoring.
  • Rabbittt, on 06/05/2008, -11/+9What would be the problem in splitting the atoms apart and shipping the carbon off to the tech/manufacturing industry, while shipping the oxygen off to the medical industry? What is this Noob Chemist missing?
    • 3tcp, on 06/05/2008, -0/+7The technology to do it outside of the laboratory is a ways away.

      http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/04-07CO2s ...
    • init100, on 06/06/2008, -0/+9"What is this Noob Chemist missing?"

      You have to inject enough energy to break the strong bond between the carbon atoms and the oxygen atoms, which is at least as much as you got from burning it in the first place. Thus, it would be a very energy-intensive process.
      • AirRaven, on 06/06/2008, -3/+2...Energy Intensive it may be, but wouldn't a reasonably efficient renewable power source provide ample energy to set up a "Decarbonating" plant?
        • bimtott, on 06/06/2008, -0/+8The whole reason for CO2 sequestration is so we can do something with the emissions from places like coal power plants.

          A wind farm being used to chemically alter the emissions of a coal plant, kinda, sorta defeats the purpose.
        • Stormwern, on 06/06/2008, -0/+3Artificial photosynthesis hasn't been invented yet either, breaking down molecules is not as easy as it may sound.
        • grumpyrain, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1> but wouldn't a reasonably efficient renewable power source provide ample energy to set up a
          > "Decarbonating" plant?

          No. If efficient renewable power sources were currently capable of providing enough energy to achieve this, you might as well remove the coal middleman and just run straight off your efficient renewable power plants.

          Also, CO2 is not the only nasty released from burning coal. Everything from mercury, U235, Thorium, sulphur dioxides, nitrogen oxides. Cleaning out the CO2 from coal is important, but won't suddenly make it a clean fuel source.
    • ricksite, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2Are you really a 'noob chemist'? Are you going to be a full on chemist someday?
      • joshhan, on 06/06/2008, -0/+6nah, he just stayed at a holiday inn express last night.
    • gubatron2, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1I've thought of Carbon Sequestration and other products into which you could synthesize CO2 for industrial use (hell you can make hydrocarbons if you want), and make money, the problem is it takes a lot of energy to do so, so its stupid.
  • scamerica, on 06/05/2008, -29/+491. Global Warming is over.
    2. It was caused by the SUN not CO2.
    • monoa, on 06/06/2008, -18/+11You're trying a new evidence-free lie? Not a problem:

      "According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has not changed."

      http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/28/090/30 ...

      Keep 'em coming, loser.
      • reisrocks, on 06/06/2008, -8/+5Thanks for the exact quote monoa.

        Scamerica was probably inspired by "The Great Global Warming Swindle" documentary.
      • LordPhilMil, on 06/06/2008, -3/+5http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/
        http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/10jan_sola ...

        Seems funny that NASA seems to say there are solar cycles, and that "Solar activity waxes and wanes in 11-year cycles"

        hmm, now...activity on the sun has no effect here? What about the fact that these sunspots can cause satellites to be disabled, cause the auroras here. But no...I'm sure that has nothing to do with the sun or irradiance or anything...

        and lastly, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation is the wiki on solar variations that follow the solar cycles.

        • init100, on 06/06/2008, -1/+4"Seems funny that NASA seems to say there are solar cycles, and that "Solar activity waxes and wanes in 11-year cycles""

          It does, but the 11 year cycle only applies to magnetic field activity, not solar energy output. This cycle is the one responsible for the significant variation in the number of sunspots, solar flares and polar auroras on Earth.
        • LordPhilMil, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1Yea, I know its a magnetic variation on the sun. But I believe the point is that the increase in solar wind decreases cosmic rays hitting the Earth, which in part creates less clouds making the surface hotter.
        • MWeather, on 06/06/2008, -1/+5Yep, there are cycles, and we've just hit the lower end of one. So eve if the cycles did significantly affect solar output (they don't) it's been decreasing, not increasing.

          Only recently did it start to increase again.

          I'm amazed you didn't find that out when researching. That first thing I looked at if I was trying to blame global warming on the sun would be whether the cycle was actualy increasing or decreasing.
      • Brownds, on 06/06/2008, -1/+0@monoa
        lol Nice fail!
      • crazyjake, on 06/06/2008, -5/+1why do all of the Carbon Cronies only show a time period of the last 100 years? Probably because if they showed global temps 10's of thousands back, all conspiracy about human effects would be debunked!
    • pianomahnn, on 06/06/2008, -4/+18That hasn't been proven as fact either.

      Here's what should be said: burning coal and oil is pretty much not really all that healthy for anyone. We shouldn't do it anymore if possible.
    • leakus, on 06/06/2008, -3/+71.You probably say that global warming is over, because the year 1998 was the hottest year yet to be recorded. This of course is true, so you some people argue that the earth has been cooling down for 10 years now. Temperatures are very inconsistent over a one year period and influenced by single events like El Niño which caused the peak in 1998. If you look at the temperature averaged over a few years, you will see that the overall trend is a rising temperature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Te ...
      2.If you can prove that infra red radiation isn't absorbed by CO2 molecules, I would stop wasting my time on digg and someone should tell the Nobel Prize Committee.
      • aIucard, on 06/06/2008, -0/+0The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. 72 degrees fahrenheit was the average world temperature for millions of years versus the current 54 degrees f average.
    • nickallen74, on 06/06/2008, -7/+11We *know* CO2 is a greenhouse gas and traps heat. We know that humans are producing vast quantities of it. It would be amazing, therefore, if CO2 was not causing temperatures to rise.
      • leakus, on 06/06/2008, -3/+7I couldn't agree more. This is not a matter of opinion. It is perfectly fine to have a personal opinion about Hillary and Obama, Jesus and Mohammed or Coke and Pepsi, but in science a personal opinion is worthless. I also would rather like global warming to be lie. But this is a matter of physics and chemistry. You can't argue against the law of nature. You either have the facts or you don't.
        • sinrtb, on 06/06/2008, -2/+3why are you guys getting dug down?
        • salinemist, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2Because they fail at basic rigor.
        • tony23, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1If it's not a matter of opinion, then why are scientists who disagree with the AGW hypothesis labelled "deniers" and not even listened to?

          I thought skepticism was healthy in real science.
      • Kornstalx, on 06/06/2008, -6/+4We *know* GTA IV is a video game and condones violence. We know that humans are playing vast quantities of it. It would be amazing, therefore, if GTA IV was not causing homicides to rise...
        • nickallen74, on 06/06/2008, -1/+5We do not know that condoning violence causes homocides to rise - perhaps humans have their own morals that prevent them murdering someone. We also do not know that playing video games has any effect on a person's decisions.

          However, we do know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas due to its chemical properties and that it traps heat. We know it's concentration has increased in the atmosphere.
        • Stormwern, on 06/06/2008, -0/+6Yes, and there was no violence ever in history before videogames. ><

          GTA does not condone violence, it condones simulated violence.
        • userperson, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2Are homicides rising?
          I've been led to believe while such things are widely reported actual crime rates (violent?) have been going down for decades. *shrugs*
          GTA IV saves lives? Kill a liberty city cop today, do it for the children?

          But that's neither here or there, and has nothing directly to do with this article directly.
          Then again tenuous connections don't stop conspiracy theorist/junk scientist who run with such 'evidence'. So I'll stand behind my conjecture on those grounds.
  • kgrandia, on 06/05/2008, -3/+12100 years from now, who will be libel if this stuff starts leaking back out? What about 500 years from now?
    • castevens, on 06/06/2008, -0/+9Who will get arrested for defamation 100 years from now when the carbon starts leaking out? I don't even know who will be famous in 100 years!!

      (liable)
      • B1663r, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2Hahahaha, I know a digger IRL, who tried to represent himself in court. He almost wound up in jail. LOL.
    • kelmaster1, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2the engineers who designed the project under a tight budget will get in trouble, not the ones who funded it.
    • Wornstrom, on 06/06/2008, -0/+3hell, I'll take the blame... clone me and press charges.
    • pinchduck, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1 I'll ignore your obvious spelling error and instead ask: Why would you worry about who to blame instead of how to fix it? As an example, invasive species are a problem in many parts of the world. There are lamprey and zebra mussels in the Great Lakes. Should we spend millions of dollars and years of our time trying to figure out who is liable, or spend millions of dollars and years of our time trying to figure out how to fix it?
      I vote that we spend our resources trying to fix the problem, not affix the blame.
  • digitronix, on 06/06/2008, -1/+4Sounds kind of like my suggestions for how we dispose of nuclear waste.
  • reisrocks, on 06/06/2008, -5/+9If that is the best plan we have come up with... we're screwed :(
  • zscottkilgore, on 06/06/2008, -3/+2sweet graphic
  • coffee200am, on 06/06/2008, -7/+16I know a way to "cure" Global Warming! Taxes!
    • TDot1980, on 06/06/2008, -0/+8That's what the government here in B.C. thinks! July 1, 2008: Say hello to the carbon tax! $1.40/Litre gas isn't quite enough!
    • init100, on 06/06/2008, -2/+2First, I actually read "Taxes" as "Texas". :)
    • VoodooPunk, on 06/06/2008, -2/+3It's nice of you to offer to pay more. I certainly won't. I'm already paying for your health care, your retirement, your food, your housing, etc. I'm certainly not going to pay more to assuage your manufactured guilt about consuming resources. We could just tax gullible leftys to pay for each new imaginary problem they want to solve. We'll call it a stupidity tax. Cheers!
      • userperson, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2Indeed, as long as people are free, and have money to spend they might use that freedom or money to work against what 'we' find valuable. We should make them more like slaves than they are already, and shoot them if they resist. Brilliant!

        So the first half of your day you work for the Federal gov't, then you work for your state, then you work for the planet, then that last hour of wages are all yours, after deductions the gov't "saves" for you, you bringing home a good $15 a day!
    • userperson, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2Indeed, as long as people are free, and have money to spend they might use that freedom or money to work against what 'we' find valuable. We should make them more like slaves than they are already, and shoot them if they resist. Brilliant!

      So the first half of your day you work for the Federal gov't, then you work for your state, then you work for the planet, then that last hour of wages are all yours, after deductions the gov't "saves" for you, you bringing home a good $15 a day!
    • nalen33, on 08/29/2008, -0/+2You've been reading about Obama's (and Hillary's and McCain's) ideas too!
  • SteelChicken, on 06/06/2008, -1/+18heres an idea, use a natural solution, store it in plants.
    • doctechnical, on 06/06/2008, -1/+3Exactly. That's how all those nasty, evil fossil fuels got there in the first place, those damned plants!

      With genetic engineering we could design plants that quickly and efficiently fix CO2 from the atmosphere and either (a) store it in the ground or (b) turn it into something useful (would? biofuel?)

      This is a very worthwhile idea.
      • rblancarte, on 06/06/2008, -1/+6"With genetic engineering we could design plants that quickly and efficiently fix CO2 from the atmosphere and either ... turn it into something useful (would? biofuel?)"

        How about OXYGEN!?!?!?!?

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis
        • AirRaven, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1And do you have *any idea* how slow Photosynthesis is?
          Refer to the "Trillion Trees" post for more info, kthx.
        • rblancarte, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1I never said it was fast. I was just pointing out that there is no need to genetic engineer anything, plants already have the faculties to do stuff w/ CO2.
    • init100, on 06/06/2008, -4/+2And what would you do with those plants? Do you know what happens when they die? The CO2 is released into the atmosphere again. On the other hand, if you buried the plants under ground, that might work.
      • doctechnical, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1What, the plants leak when they die?

        Like I said, you engineer the plants so they either sequester the C into the ground, or make something useful out of it, like wood.
  • DanInAUSTRALIA, on 06/06/2008, -11/+5any suggestions are something, and at least this is a start even if it aint the best one

    ...............…………..„--~~""”¯¯¯””~~-„……………………………………...........
    …………………..„-~”:::::::::::::::::::::::::”~,………………………………………….
    ……………….„~”,:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::”-,………………………………….......
    …………….../;;;;;;|::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::……………………………............
    ……………..|;;;;;;;/:::::::””~~--::::::::::::::-~~”::……………………………...........
    ……………./”~,;;/:::::::/¯¯¯¯¯’:::::::::::/’¯¯¯¯’………………………….........
    ……………. º: ¯:::::::: . . • . ,/::::::::::„ . • . ,/……………………………….......
    ……………/’::::::::::::::::”~~~”:::::/””~::::’”~~”.::’,………………………………….
    ………….../:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::’,__„„/’:::::::::::’………………………………...
    …………..|:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::„----„_„---,::::::::::………………………...........
    …………..|:::::::::::::::::::::::::::„~"----„__„„-“::::::::::|………………………….......
    …………..|::::::::::::::::::::::::::/’;;;;;;;;;/::::::::::::::::::|…IT'S GON RAIN!!!
    ………..„~”:::::::::::::::::::::::::__;;;;;;--„::::::::::::::/…………………………........
    ……..,-“;:; .,::::::::::::::::::::::::’„_¯¯¯„-“:::::::::::::/………………………….........
    ….„~”;:;:;:;, .”~„::::::::::::::::::::::::¯¯¯:::::::::::::,-“;………………………...........
    .,~”;:;:;:;;:;:;:”-, . ”~--„:::::::::::::~--„„___„„~“::::„-‘ . |;:'”~-„…………………………
    “;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;”-, . . .”~~---„„„„_______„„„--~” . ./ |;:;:’;:;”-,……………………...
    ;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;____;:;”-, ~-„ . . . . . . . . /;;;;;’, . . .,/ . |;:,~”;:;:;”-,……………..........
    ;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;/;:;:;:;”~, “~-„_ . . . /„;;;;;;;/”-„~” . . |;:;”~„;:;:;:;’……………….....
    ;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:/;:;:;:;:;:;:”~„ . .¯”~-’ . “~,;;;’ . . . . .|;:;:;:;|;:;:;:;:;’…………….....
    ;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;”~--„;:;:;:;:;:”~„ . . . . . .|;;;;;;’ . . . |;:;:;:;/;:;:”~,;:;:………………
    ;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:”~--„;:;:;:;:”~„ . . . |;;;;;;;;’, . .|;:;:;:/;:;:;:;:;’;:;:………........
    ;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:”~-„;:;:;:”~„ .|;;;;;;;;;;;”~,|;:;:;/;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:……………
    ;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:|;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:”~-„;:;:”~„;;;;;;;;;;;;/;:;,/’;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;;:;:…...........
    ;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:|,/;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:”~-„;”~„;;;;;;/;:,/;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;;:;:'……......
    ;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:/;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;”~-„’,;/ ,/;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:|…........
    ;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;|;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:¯„/;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;|;:;:|……….
    ;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;|;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;|;:o;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:::;:|;:;:|...........
    ;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;|;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;|;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:|;:;:|……….
    ;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;|;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;|;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:|;:;:|……….
    _;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;|;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;|;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:|;:;:|...........
    ;:;¯””~~--„„_|_;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:|;:;o;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;|-~/…….....
    ;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:¯””~~----„„„__;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;;:;:;:;|;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;|~“…………
    „_:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;¯¯”""”~~~~------„„„„„__|_;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;|……………
    ;:;¯¯¯””””~~~---„„„__:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;¯¯¯””””~~~~~----|…………...
  • Eagle193, on 06/06/2008, -4/+9A good idea, but a short-term solution to a long-term problem. Let's find a lasting solution.
  • QsheiK, on 06/06/2008, -2/+9Wouldn't this be counter-productive? If I recall correctly...the reason behind the explosions of Lake Nyos, Lake Monoun, and Lake Kivu is because of the oversaturation of CO2 in the beds of these lakes, which caused all the people and livestock within its radius to suffocate and die. And they have machines which actually diffuse the CO2 from these lakes to prevent any future explosions.

    Lets say that they try this in larger sea or an ocean....wouldn't that cause an explosion on a much larger scale and completely disrupt the ecosystem in the process?
    • wiggles, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Keep in mind that you're talking about sequestering it in the bottom of an ocean, not a lake. My personal uneducated guess says that since oceans are much bigger and deeper than lakes, it would presumably take much much much MUCH more CO2 to cause the effect you describe. Someone care to do the math?
      • sinrtb, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Math wise its a limit problem. Eventually the ocean will explode and kill everyone on earth. However we should be a multi planet species by then so it would not end the human race.
        • Stormwern, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1CO2 doesn't explode, it was probably a bubble of it that breached the water surface. CO2 is very dangerous since it spreads along the ground, but wind eventually dillutes it, so not dangerous out on the ocean.
      • QsheiK, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1It will still disrupt the ecosystem in exponential proportions though....Limnic eruption is only one of the many things that can go wrong. And remember that the accumulation of CO2 made in these lake bottoms is a natural occurrence that happens at a very slow pace....no one is feeding these lakes to make them explode. If they were, the explosions would happen on a much higher frequency.

        Given these circumstances and considering how much CO2 is generated by the world, it wouldn't take very long to fill large lakes and seas with unstable amounts of CO2 and be the cause of major catastrophes.
    • Hydrochloric, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1I think that the theory is the same; however, it would take an astronomical amount of CO2 to produce the same effect. Also, have they considered the effect on the sealife? I know that is very little life that deep but we would suffocate anything that is there. Just doesn't sound very "green" to me
  • muffinmonk, on 06/06/2008, -6/+2Why don't we just have a space ship rocket all that carbon into outer space? The pollution the ship creates is significantly less than what it's going to take up there anyways...
    • init100, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Are you sure? Do you have any idea of how much CO2 is released each year, and how many rocket that would need to put it into space.

      Until we have a space elevator, putting stuff in space will be very expensive.
    • Stormwern, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1Would release a thousand times more co2 than you can bring up. Today's rocket fuel is very very bad compared to sciense fiction, so there are few things in the world worth shooting up into space (satelites, telescopes, Hillary Clinton)
    • KianaVCL, on 06/06/2008, -0/+0Really now, in the long run, ejecting our garbage into space would only mean rubbing this planet of it "resources"... if that was a good way to get rid of, say, nuclear waste then we'd be doing it already... let alone CO2 which can be recycled "naturally"
  • EatingPie, on 06/06/2008, -4/+11Almost 15 years ago, I did a research paper on solutions for the greenhouse effect. This one was largely rejected by scientists, primarily for the fact that, indeed, it will leech back out eventually. This will some day put us back in the exact same boat we're in now. Add to this the earthquake article from Wired, which specifically named carbon sequestering as a potential seismic risk.

    The ONLY viable solution I found was planting a Trillion Trees. The drawback, again, is that the trees eventually die and become carbon producers. However, as any rainforest will tell you, keep the forrest vital, don't just let it die off / be clear cut, and you're okay.

    -Pie
    • ElAssoWipo, on 06/06/2008, -2/+5Yeah but we can't plant trees, for every one you plant a thousand are being cut to make place for even more humans or a human industry.

      We wouldn't even be having any problems if we weren't so overpopulated. Say you pollute one lake for an industry... It sucks but it's a minimal impact.

      Now with all the technology we have, instead of polluting one lake real bad, we pollute each and every single one of them, but moderately. Catastrophic impact. Species disappearing off the face of the earth instead of at just one spot.

      The solution to ALL our environmental problems is controlling the growth of human population. But nobody wants to admit it.

      Even if we do manage to replace all fossil fuels. That's just more battery acid, more plastics, more destroyed land, more environmental impacts, they just release toxic substances or kill habitats instead of releasing CO2.

      The more we are the more space we take and the more crap we waste.
      • init100, on 06/06/2008, -1/+5"The solution to ALL our environmental problems is controlling the growth of human population."

        You can help. Buy a car that runs on fuel produced from food crops, such as ethanol. That's help control overpopulation by starving many poor bastards in the third world to death.
        • ricksite, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1A vast majority of corn grown in the midwest is field corn. It is used to feed livestock and produce ethanol. A byproduct of ethanol production just happens to be...livestock feed!
      • flashingcurser, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ ...

        27,245,758k metric tonnes converts to
        272,457,580,000 tonnes converts to 600,659,980,868,000 lbs CO2

        Trees trap an average of 12.5kg of CO2 per year or 28lbs
        http://www.carbon-info.org/carbonnews_072.htm

        600,659,980,868,000/28=21,452,142,173,858 trees needed (rounded to the nearest tree)

        21,452,142,173,858/6,000,000,000(humans)=3,576 per man woman and child
        Average worldwide household size= 4
        Each household would have to plant about 14,304 trees. I'm not saying that people shouldn't plant trees, just that we shouldn't ignore other ways of solving this problem. It will take many solutions combined to solve this problem, some will require science and innovation.
      • witte, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1You globalwamring people don't get it. The solution to the planet's three environmental problems (habitat destruction/fragmentation, poaching, pollution) is not to "limit the growth of human popultion". That is absurd, frightening, and isn't even legal under our constitution (legal in China, yes... but alas, China is the largest emitter of greenhouse gasses in the world, so your horrific solution is now even more absurd).

        Actually, as it turns out, as global population increases or remains constant, the only real solution to the problems of habit destruction, poaching and pollution is to increase population density. This is simple:

        1) Agrarian peoples must be encouraged to leave rural areas and third-world zones and migrate into cities. How? Fax them a copy of the U.S. Constitution to start. Rural folks won't budge until they are able to vote for laws that will make better-paying available.

        2) Non-agrarian folks --- upper- and middle-class suburban families in suburbs, some of whom may just recently have left the city -- must be encouraged to MOVE BACK. How? Fix the cities, they are dirty, violent, crowded, and expensive. Do this by 1) boosting per capital income, by encouraging the growth of industry -- NOT by punishing it with new taxes and regulation (**cough... ** obama..cough**); 2) by zoning better (build UP, not out), and 3) by enforcing the damn LAW (especially immigration law).




    • TrevorBradley, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2Is reducing CO2 emissions *not* a viable solution?
    • Filter, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1The answer isn't necessarily in trees. There are much smaller life forms that consume much more Carbon Dioxide that could be used.
    • ricksite, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2Most oxygen comes from the ocean. We need to melt the ice caps and make the ocean bigger. That would solve our problems.
    • EatingPie, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1@ElAssoWipo: "Yeah but we can't plant trees, for every one you plant a thousand are being cut to make place for even more humans or a human industry."

      Actually, that's false. We *can* plant trees.

      TreePeople, an organization in Los Angeles, decided to plant 1 Million Trees in the *one year* prior the 1984 LA Olympics. They succeeded with time to spare -- and didn't hardly advertise their efforts at all. Total grassroots.

      I realize a Trillion is one million million, but if a little group without government funding could do 1 million in a year, it is TOTALLY feasible when you get more people behind it and governments allocate resources.

      And while deforestation is massive, that's exactly a part of the problem a Trillion Trees would solve -- replenishing the carbon sink (and oxygen production) lost to deforestation.

      -Pie
  • TheRealToma, on 06/06/2008, -2/+6Concerned about sea levels rising?! Turn all the gas into liquid and throw it into the bottom of the ocean! FOOL PROOF!
    • retrorambler, on 06/06/2008, -1/+3Or how about growing a bunch of carbon fixing plants and pump them into the ground to make new oil?
  • TJATL, on 06/06/2008, -1/+8Why don't we just plant more trees "forests" or large farms of different plants that feed off of CO2? You can look at Atlanta to see what urban sprawl does to surrounding forests and the increase in temperature.
    • init100, on 06/06/2008, -3/+1You need to plant a lot of trees to offset the annual 27 billion tons of CO2 that humanity is putting into the atmosphere. And then there is the problem that plants not only need CO2 and water, but fertilizers and minerals, to grow. And finally, when the plants die, they release all captured carbon into the atmosphere again.
      • TJATL, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2so plant a lot or at least get started. Forests survive on rain water, did you not know that? We don't send people out to forests with watering cans, fertilizers and depositing minerals in the soil. You made me laugh though with your comment. You know what was there before that big city? You guessed it, trees. I wonder what the connection could be. OMG, plants die and release CO2 into the atmosphere! So now dead plants are bad? I suggest you grab your watering can and fertilizer to get out there and make sure that doesn't happen.
  • chrissku, on 06/06/2008, -3/+1I thought it said "by stuffing cotton in the earth". I was like .....WTF?
  • ColorBlind, on 06/06/2008, -1/+5That sounds like a great idea that wont back fire on us at all! ......
  • lazn, on 06/06/2008, -4/+7umm since CO2 is responsible for less than 3% of global warming and water vapor is the largest contributor (more than 95%) as a greenhouse gas.. Why don't we have big dehumidifiers out there, it'd provide clean drinking water, and reduce global warming!
    • init100, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2That simply wouldn't work, as drier air would result in more evaporation from lakes and oceans, making up for the water vapor captured by the dehumidifiers.
    • mchristiansen, on 06/06/2008, -0/+3We have the dehumidifier now. Its called rain.
      • lazn, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1shh I am trying to get a govt grant for this, don't get all logical and stuff. (since other environmentalist almost never are)
  • Apocrypha, on 06/06/2008, -3/+6Stuffing the offending substances in the ground doesn't "fix" anything anymore than burying nuclear waste "fixes" the problem of nuclear waste.
  • naterpoke, on 06/06/2008, -0/+10retarded: companies that are doing poorly sell their creds to companies who are doing well, this is dumb as *****
    • retrorambler, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2Especially if we are giving the credits away to begin with!
  • BoDeeDoe, on 06/06/2008, -6/+9Ahhh.... more great yellow-journalism from the Hearst owned Popularmechanics magazine. The Pravda is more credible than this rag. Do people really believe this crap? Let's bury the CO2?!? When they finally figure out that the sun is the culprit will they suggest burying that too? Thanks for the laugh Popularmechanics!
  • eyespypro, on 06/06/2008, -7/+10Maybe they can pump it up Agore & Liebermans ass, and put their carbon tax there as well.
  • TheImaginator, on 06/06/2008, -1/+4"What ’s even tougher for carbon sequestration: figuring out where to store it."

    Hint - Use it for fuel or plastics or whatever.
  • darkfus, on 06/06/2008, -1/+8Gather up all the carbons and use it for carbon paper - since we already have carbon papers nobody will notice and then we can throw out all photocopiers and use carbon paper instead. Yes, I know, pure genius.
  • notruth, on 06/06/2008, -4/+4What makes anyone think they know HOW MUCH CO2 should be "sealed away"? Isn't it logical to assume, based on the theory that TOO MUCH CO2 causes global warming, that REMOVING TOO MUCH would cause global cooling? And seriously, how can anyone possibly know what GLOBAL LEVELS are safe? There is more atmosphere up there than we are capable of accurately monitoring in real-time.

    The only solution to this problem is to STOP PUMPING CO2 into the atmosphere and let nature create the appropriate balance. Nature is the only thing that can do this right. Add humans into the equation and it will simply get worse.
    • opticwind, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2Right, so offer a solution that is practical. Complaining doesn't help. Yeah, things might get better if CO2 was gone. Guess what, it won't be. We need plans to lessen the burden we can USE.
    • ricksite, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2They are taking the CO2 directly from a coal burning plant. They aren't taking CO2 out of the atmosphere. They are keeping it from going there in the first place.
    • Stormwern, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2We've released around 1 trillion tonnes of CO2 since the the industrial revolution, so it's not very likely we'll accidently store away too much of it.
  • nycmac247, on 06/06/2008, -6/+9HYSTERIA to enable TAXATION
    • AirRaven, on 06/06/2008, -2/+1I'm willing to bet good money that Parent is a RP-tard.
  • opticwind, on 06/06/2008, -1/+5Brilliant plan. Don't change the tire, just rotate them.
  • lead2thehead, on 06/06/2008, -2/+2This is almost as stupid as the plan where we pump sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere to block out the sun.
  • billbugger, on 06/06/2008, -2/+2Worried about leaking, huh? Do you realize that nature has been doing this to co2 and methane for millions of years? They're talking about basically copying what nature does as it's a proven method.
  • Aliwalla, on 06/06/2008, -2/+4I think we should just accept the fact that 100 years from now our planet is going to be hotter, steamier and wetter with all the increased meteorological activity that's going to bring and deal with it.
    • init100, on 06/06/2008, -1/+3A simple solution for those that wants to ignore the environmental effects of their lifestyle, and continue to drive their gas-guzzling SUVs for eternity.
      • witte, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1How do wagons and pickups hurt the environment?
  • rblancarte, on 06/06/2008, -1/+7Clearly the answer is giant ice cube in the ocean every couple of years. That will solve the problem ... FOREVER!!!
    FOREVER!!!

    But seriously, this [popular mechanics I mean] is a dumb solution. It sounds like a solution that, while novel, ultimately will just put off our problems for years, and may result in many more along the way. CO2 in the ocean - building up into a liquid denser than seawater - THAT won't cause ANY problems to the ecosystem.

    I think the solution is to cut CO2 production, and make sure we have the planet populated with plants, it seemed to work for nature the last few millennia.
  • joe122370, on 06/06/2008, -7/+4the sky is falling! the sky is falling!
    • salinemist, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2do what you're told! do what you're told!
  • Mightbiteyou, on 06/06/2008, -2/+7By stuffing carbon into the earth they mean burying 1/3 of the human population alive.
  • EllisAshbrook, on 06/06/2008, -1/+6idiots
  • Wuzizname, on 06/06/2008, -1/+4It's like sweeping the mess under a giant carpet.
  • thedogfatherx, on 06/06/2008, -3/+8So you can "fix" global warming? I highly highly ***** doubt that. Are they going to "fix" space heating up to. This world is insane. Quit ***** with nature and let it run it's course.
    • TripcodeMel, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1"space heating up to.."

      What.
      • thedogfatherx, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1I was just trying to cover a large area. Triton, Neptune’s largest moon, seemed to have heated up significantly since it was visited by the Explorer space probe in 1989.

        I'm just highly doubtful that our global warming is man made. What about that global cooling scare in the seventies?
    • InverGoatie, on 06/06/2008, -0/+0"Quit ***** with nature and let it run it's course."

      It's because we've ***** with nature we're in this mess, the least we can do is try fix it..
    • Brian48216, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1"Quit ***** with nature"

      I guess that would mean we'd have to stop burning fossil fuels then.
  • MWeather, on 06/06/2008, -1/+6Wouldn't it make more sense to just stop digging carbon up?
  • kelmaster1, on 06/06/2008, -4/+6This helps the fact that Global warming is a scam to deter out attention from more pressing matters while spending on ridiculous projects like this one goes on. It's just another spending scam to make the banks of the world wealthier.
    • Stormwern, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Yes, screw the planet, we have to focus on killing all the arabs. >
  • ToRoE, on 06/06/2008, -2/+3We could start by NOT commercially producing CO2 for industry, yeah think?

    'The process, known as enhanced oil recovery, isn't new: For years drillers have been injecting commercially produced carbon dioxide to recover oil. But this is the first project to use CO2 captured from waste.'
    • witte, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1Legitimate businesses have the right to produce and sell whatever they want. CO2 isn't pollution, so they are free to sell as much as they desire. Hey but you are free to go tell those nasty mean entrepreneurs how you feel though!
  • nub4life, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2Sounds like sweeping crap under a carpet to me.
  • tymdautyt, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2It's costly but just send it to Mars. Warm that planet up.
    • fungusmonkey, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2Or even better, leave it all here and send us to Mars. That way we can screw up 2 planet!
  • JirkJiggler, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Wouldn't it be more economical to just skip this tech and go straight for a Dyson's sphere?
    • bimtott, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Good idea. Just, for the love of god, remember to turn off the automatic doors/tractor beam when we leave.
    • Stormwern, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1I think I'll go hide in a schrödinger box..
  • muhadeeb, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Thought: extract most of the CO2, compress it, store it in freight tankers send it to the bottom of the ocean where under pressure it will prolly stay for a while. or separate the carbon and oxygen for profit, this will work for methane hydrates too, which contribute to warming.
  • kingp, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2Maybe if we stopped cutting down all of our trees, to build over priced houses, then we'd be able to get rid of some of the excess CO2. Am I totally off base here?
    • witte, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1Big homes are a waste. Insightful. But what are you suggesting exactly? FEDERAL LIMITS ON HOME SIZES? Sorry bud, not constitutional.
      • secrity, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1Property tax multipliers based upon square footage of a dwelling, such as:.

        Up to 999 sq ftt: 90%
        1,000 - 1,500 sq ftt: 100%
        1,501 - 2,000 sq ftt: 110%
        2,001 - 3,000 sq ftt: 125%
        and so on
      • kingp, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1Of course its unconstituional to put limits on home sizes. I'm just thinking out loud because don't trees absorb CO2 and convert it to Oxygen?

        Here where I live, I see developers destroying hundreds of acres of forested land to build these over priced (and undersized, poorly built) homes that sit empty for years because no one can afford them.
    • Stormwern, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1Houses is not a problem, binds coal as well as trees do.
  • Filter, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2Packing Carbon Dioxide away is stupid because the carbon dioxide landfills (if that's what you want to call them) will end up a mess to deal with later. Plants naturally consume carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. Why not make full use of this wonderful process that happens naturally and instead of hiding the carbon dioxide of out site for later generations to handle, convert it to oxygen that can be used as fuel and for breathing.
    • Stormwern, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1For the record, oxygen is not fuel
      • Filter, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1It's combined with fuel to let it burn... two tanks on the space shuttle?
    • Alpinefolk, on 06/09/2008, -0/+0Most of the Carbon humans have added to the atmosphere has come from underground in the first place. What is the problem with putting it back? Even if it only works for a hundred years or so... it'll give us time to come up with a better solution.
      • Filter, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1We have a better solution... plants. They consume CO2. Plant a tree!
  • hexydes, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2This thread just proves how little ANYBODY knows about our global environment, and demonstrates perfectly why we shouldn't be making sweeping changes in how we live. We should absolutely continue doing research, and as more CONCRETE information becomes available, make decisions based on that. However, so far everyone is pretty much guessing at solutions, only to be screamed down by the next guy. That is a very bad way to go about making decisions in life...
    • Alpinefolk, on 06/09/2008, -0/+0Hmmm... so your house is burning down, you have a hose a bucket and a phone to ring the fire department..... I think you had better wait till you have more information before you do anything!
  • mttyd, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Let's just turn it into carbon nanotubes... Either that or use it to filter the water that will be fouled up once they start putting this waste in the ground... Why does it seem that every "go green" idea has the potential to add to the harm we've done to the environment?
  • FatherVic, on 06/06/2008, -3/+1Global Warming is just the tool used by modern fascists to rally the masses around a cause.
    Fascism works by:
    1. Find a unifying cause.
    2. Gain massive support.
    3. Institute policies "for the good of the cause"
    4. Destroy democracy.
    • JirkJiggler, on 06/06/2008, -0/+3So GW's the same thing as terrorism? Interesting.
      • FatherVic, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1all politicians engage in it. W, Pelosi, Obama, Clinton,
        A - L - L politicians.

        do not...
        AssUMe
  • SacraBos, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Makes sense to me. After all, most of the "carbon emissions" we're worried about is carbon we dug/drilled/pumped out the ground in the first place. Put it back and in a few millions years, it will be oil again!

    If you really look at "An Inconvienent Truth", and how Al's telling us how Man is causing global warming, compare the graph estimating carbon emissions with his graph of population. Matches up pretty good. Given the amount of carbon in a person, and the food one needs to eat, what it takes to produce that food, and gases one exhales. The obvious way to solve man's impact on global warming is to eliminate people. Like a Bird Flu virus killing off about a billion people - which would get us back to the 1990 levels of pollution and population.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 63 of 63 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.