<div>Dan wrote:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I've read where many large<br>corporations go for this "carbon neutral" philosophy by "purchasing<br>verfiable reductions in CO2 elsewhere", but they are criticized for<br>doing such rather than creating(?) their own CO2 reductions. (creating
<br>reductions -- talk about an oxymoron!)</div>
<div>----</div>
<div>On the subject of purchasing CO2 reductions (carbon trading markets) to offset CO2 output, this is a good idea if for no other reason than it is a full acknowledgement that human impacts on atmospheric CO2 are a serious problem that must be addressed, rather than continuing with the "why hurt the economy if we don't really know what will happen?" skepticism on human caused global warming.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>However, CO2 trading, while helpful, will not solve the problem globally to a large degree. Fossil fuel energy is the primary driver of economic wealth generation, given current economic systems world wide, though some nations employ nuclear to a large degree, as their economies are still integrated into and dependent upon the fossil fuel intensive economies of other nations. If huge CO2 reductions were purchased on a global scale, on average less fossil fuel energy would be used. Thus less wealth would be available to purchase the CO2 reductions, resulting in the need to burn more fossil fuels to generate more wealth to have money to buy more CO2 reductions...I'm assuming that large scale wealth is directly dependent on the amount of energy consumed, which can be challenged, I understand. Some economists will argue we can use far less energy and still grow the economy. Tell that to China as they modernize dependent upon massive increases in energy consumption via fossil fuels.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>We in the developed world talk gleefully about purchasing CO2 reductions because we are so wealthy from gorging on a fossil fueled economy that we have the luxury of being able to afford carbon trading. China may soon overtake the USA in fossil fuel use, in part due to their huge coal reserves, with a per capita income and per capita CO2 impact still far below that of the USA. When the USA argues China should make economic sacrifices, in their rush to develop, to slow CO2 output, talk about hypocrisy! Now there's the hypocrisy that should be in the headlines. Not Al Gore's. On a per capita basis, China will not have the wealth in the short term to widely afford the massive carbon trading that the USA may be able to afford.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>NASA climate scientist James Hansen spoke on C-Span last night, and insisted that every coal fired plant now being built should incorporate CO2 sequestration. He offered data on global coal reserves and the climate impacts on burning this coal without CO2 sequestration... He backed up the claims, that I have sourced from several other climate scientists, that if we hit 500 ppm atmospheric CO2 levels, the Earth will undergo radical climate change. Actually, he suggested that even 450 ppm may be the tipping point. He said that current coal fired plants being constructed with a lifespan of 50 years or more will just have to be taken off line if they do not employ CO2 sequestration, so why build these dinosaurs (my wording) in the first place?
<br> </div>
<div>He also advocated use of biofuels for large scale power generation plants that use CO2 sequestration technology, rather than using biofuels for cars and trucks, which just dump the CO2 back into the air. It would be a means of taking CO2 out of the atmosphere and not putting it back in, and generating energy in the process, assuming as usual in the biofuel discussion, that the upstream CO2 impacts to the biofuel growth/harvesting/production process are not too high.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Affordable CO2 sequestration technology to allow truly clean (i.e. very reduced CO2 atmospheric output) energy from coal and/or biofuels is a must.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>We are back to the Manhattan Project argument... Massive and rapid investment from both the public and private sector to implement energy technology to replace fossil fuel energy and implement CO2 sequestration as soon as possible...100s of billions of dollars in investment...
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The cost of the Iraq war might do it!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The USA, to a great extent, is the wealthiest nation on Earth, at the cost of huge CO2 output into Earth's atmosphere, far beyond any other nation so far, with potential climate impacts we are forcing on the entire planet. The USA could now develop and implement the massively scaled technology solutions that are necessary to have any hope of solving the problem of human caused climate change. We could offer to China CO2 sequestration technology for coal energy to allow them to gain the economic benefits of their coal reserves without massive CO2 output. If we can't solve these problems, and offer these solutions to the world, well... Fill in the blank..............
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Al Gore for president! </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett </div>