Pulling CO2 from air vital, say researchers

Emerging techniques to pull carbon dioxide from the air and store it away to stabilize the climate may become increasingly important as the planet tips into a state of potentially dangerous warming, researchers from Columbia University’s Earth Institute argue in a paper out this week.

The upfront costs of directly taking carbon out of the air will likely be expensive, but such technology may well become cheaper as it develops and becomes more widely used, and cost should not be a deterrent to developing such a potentially valuable tool, the authors said.

The techniques would address sources of CO2 that other types of carbon capture and storage cannot, and have the potential to even lower the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere — significant because the world may already have crossed beyond the point where the climate can be stabilized by just limiting emissions.

“The field of carbon sequestration, the field of capture and storage as a community is too timid when it comes to new ideas,” said lead author Klaus Lackner, director of the Lenfest Center for Sustainable Energy. “You cannot rule out new technology simply because the current implementation is too expensive.”


How about we rule it out because wasting a magnificent environmental resource is a seriously stupid thing to do?

About these ads

6 responses to “Pulling CO2 from air vital, say researchers

  1. Why are we trying to pull the co2 out of the atmosphere? Isn’t that what plants need to produce oxygen?

  2. And then they never run an analysis on how much CO2 is produced to produce the thing that reduces the CO2. Some of the things I see end up not storing anything.

  3. I have this wonderful technology to do just that. It is called a “tree”. You can have them for $99.99 each at Home Depot.

  4. Westchester Bill

    “but such technology may well become cheaper as it develops and becomes more widely used”

    There are intrinsic thermodynamic cost to taking CO2 from a defuse gaseous state to a concentrated liquid or solid state. Those costs are immune from the learning curve for manufacturing.

  5. This is pure Junk Science!!!

    Very apt that you carry this on your site!

  6. Are these people in a time warp? The article reads like they’re writing in 2008.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s