rssA Stomach Ache for Mother Nature
Wednesday, April 02, 2008 at 10:16 am
- 6 Comments
<p>Australia <a id="hkpr" href="http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iw6FNozGEZffYhfuUG5UMhPoVFhgD8VPKHU81" title="launched a project">launched a project</a> today to bury CO2 underground. A plant in southern Victoria plans to capture and compress 110,231 tons of CO2 emissions and bury it 6,500 feet down into the Earth, according to the AP. The technology is called geosequestration, and the goal is, of course, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.<br id="ueks" />
<br id="f1.2" />
It sounds like a terrible idea. Sticking something that’s bad for the atmosphere deep into the Earth can’t be good for Mother Nature. More importantly, a project to bury industrial CO2 emissions basically gives power plants a pass to keep polluting all they want. It gives them no incentive to cut back on CO2 emissions. </p>
6 Comments
Comment posted April 3, 2008 @ 7:29 am
eyedf if you can’t understand that because the atmosphere is an inanimate group of gases and particles, not a human being without human concerns or a conceivable lifespan (it’s unclear that it would even be bad for the atmosphere to cease to exist) then I don’t see that we can have a meaningful discussion of this point.
Comment posted April 2, 2008 @ 3:37 pm
"There is nothing bad about CO2 for the atmosphere."
LOL! You need to take a coupla steps back, too, bru. We need a little less ron, not more ron.
Comment posted April 2, 2008 @ 10:52 am
I normally love this blog but I hope this post is a belated April Fools joke. I don’t want to be harsh but the second paragraph of this post is one of the dumber things I have ever read.
"Sticking something that’s bad for the atmosphere deep into the Earth can’t be good for Mother Nature."
There is nothing bad about CO2 for the atmosphere. CO2′s effects are bad for humans living on the earth but how can one talk about a positive or a negative when the elements in play are "atmosphere" a collection of gasses and other particles, "Mother Earth" a big ball of metals, organics, etc., and CO2 a very simple elemental particle that is essential to life? Anyway, I know this post wasn’t a treatise on the subject but seriously, take a step back and think before you post things.
Comment posted April 2, 2008 @ 5:52 am
I normally love this blog but I hope this post is a belated April Fools joke. I don't want to be harsh but the second paragraph of this post is one of the dumber things I have ever read.
"Sticking something that's bad for the atmosphere deep into the Earth can't be good for Mother Nature."
There is nothing bad about CO2 for the atmosphere. CO2's effects are bad for humans living on the earth but how can one talk about a positive or a negative when the elements in play are "atmosphere" a collection of gasses and other particles, "Mother Earth" a big ball of metals, organics, etc., and CO2 a very simple elemental particle that is essential to life? Anyway, I know this post wasn't a treatise on the subject but seriously, take a step back and think before you post things.
Comment posted April 2, 2008 @ 10:37 am
"There is nothing bad about CO2 for the atmosphere."
LOL! You need to take a coupla steps back, too, bru. We need a little less ron, not more ron.
Comment posted April 3, 2008 @ 2:29 am
eyedf if you can't understand that because the atmosphere is an inanimate group of gases and particles, not a human being without human concerns or a conceivable lifespan (it's unclear that it would even be bad for the atmosphere to cease to exist) then I don't see that we can have a meaningful discussion of this point.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
