Quote:
Originally Posted by craigwd
No - using less carbon is a good thing.
Spending billions to hide it under the bed is not a good thing.
|
Disagree- that's where it was before, and it stores it way longer than some trees would. The only thing I prefer more is actual geologic storage (making "rocks" that suck in and bind the carbon in chemical form). Trees die and decompose. You're kicking the can down the road by just planting trees. But if you plant trees AND inject extra carbon back into deep wells under shale capstone layers, then you are removing some of the carbon from the cycle.
Look into the science, it makes sense to inject the carbon. We've been doing it successfully for 8 years in Alberta already (shell quest). Another benefit is that we could potentially reuse it in a more energy-free future... CO2 bonds are energy intensive to break, but if energy becomes limitless from fusion or something, then we would have stores of carbon to make into fun things again.