Scientists, in this case at Arizona State University, are working on concepts and strategies that absorb carbon dioxide created by fossil fuel power plants before it's released into the atmosphere. A number of strategies are showing promise. So what does the enviro-crowd say? Howard J. Herzog of MIT says that carbon sequestration methods "are not an answer to the problem." He further elaborates: "This is not we're going to be able to have our cake and eat it, too."
A reasonable person might ask why Herzog and many other enviro-activists care little about carbon management? Carbon can be managed by growth of plants wordwide and by recent strategies to convert carbon to non-gaseous form at the site where it's created. Both concepts can work side by side to manage carbon dioxide. This seems reasonable because after decades of study, scientists don't know what level of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is optimum. Some believe that there is a fine line between too much which might warm the earth and too little which will stunt plant growth.
One fact we know is that as carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, plant life flourishes which provides the food for animal life to explode in variety and in numbers. The health of our oceans depends on plankton. As plankton increases in numbers, the food chain that leads to fish and mammals is enriched. And so it goes for agriculture worldwide. More carbon equals better and healthier and stronger crops.
But more carbon dioxide also means more economic activity. That means more income and more consumption and continued world leadership for the United States. And that translates into more freedoms and religious choice and hope and opportunity for all the world's peoples. Now that's truly scary for the big government types.
No comments:
Post a Comment