One way to reply to Global Warming is to take all the fixed carbon in the atmosphere and sequester it...?

Question

How could one possible sequester the carbon?

Ok, I should've probably said take "some" of the carbon....humans add some huge number of billions of tons to the atmosphere, wouldn't it be more logical to sequester it somewhere?

Answer 1

No it is not possible to sequester all the atmospheric carbon. Besides if you did that all plant life would die and the worlds ecosystems would collapse. Plants need CO2 for photosynthesis. Even if there was no anthropological CO2 input into the atmosphere the evidence suggests that the earth will still warm as it has been since the end of the last ice age.

Answer 2

You can no more sequester carbon dioxide on a global scale any more than you can sequester helium on a global scale. First of all, you have to keep in mind two words, "global scale". At an industrial scale, your soda company does a good job sequestering the carbon dioxide into sugar flavored beverages in aluminum cans. So it is technically possible to sequester carbon from the atmosphere. The real challenge is to scale it up to a global scale. Nobody has ever tried to do anything on a global scale without short of simply banning the use of a substance. Even with the banning of a substance such as CFCs to stop ozone destruction, people still rely on SLOW natural processes to do the sequestering and restoring to natural levels.

We already have a way to fix carbon in the atmosphere for the entire planet, it's called photosynthesis.

Answer 3

Theoretically that is possible--but figuring out how to do it cost-effectively on a planetary scale is another matter. Currently, research is in its very early stages.

Personally, I don't think that's going to be a major factor in whatever set of solutions are eventually developed . And I may be wrong--but here's why:

We already have some solutions that can deal with much--probably the majority--of CO2 emmissions, once these are implemented. Thes includesolar energy (which is now cost-effective; in fact it saves money once the start up cost is recouped), other alternatives such as wind power; use reduction strategies (more fuel efficient cars and energy-eficient buildings, expanding mass transit, etc.). And there is a lot of research undeerway on other technologies.

So--we are likely to beable to cut CO2 levels to acceptable levels in a fairly short time (thugh implementing these completely will take 20-30 years). Contrast that with having to develop an entirely new set of sequestration technologies that will work on a planet-widescale AND be cost-effective--we're barely out of the starting gate. My guess--by the time we can do it, we won't need it. Not that I'm against the research--we need to be exploring and developing all avenues until we have a clear ad workable set of strategies in place that deal with global warming completly.

Answer 4

What you're referring to is Carbon Harvesting or Carbon Capture. Research is being conducted into ways that this can be acheieved, at the same time other forms of climate engineering are being investigated.

One of the most promising appears to be through the use of 'artificial trees', so called because they mimic real trees by removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Unlike a real tree the artificial one uses a chemical process to remove CO2.

Sodium hydroxide in the 'tree' reacts with CO2 and the result is a solution of sodium carbonate. The solution would then have to be permenantly stored.

There's more about artificial trees and other methods of climate engineering here... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/6374967.stm and you can watch the TV programme here... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=286000425078890061

Answer 5

I also believe the information that was given before me because all plant life need carbon during photosynthesis, and if the carbon in the atmosphere are sequestered, plant life would die and there would be imbalance in the ecosystem.

Answer 6

All we humans can do is stop CO2 emanations (as much as possible) and hope Mom Nature will gradually converge to historical values by itself... a proces that could last generations, but it's our only hope. Maybe we can help nature by strongly increasing rainforest earth coverage, but there are too many interests on the opposite trend.

Answer 7

Even if you could isolate CO2 emissions it is unclear if that would have a significant effect on global warming. Why? Because CO2 is just one factor among many that affects climate. Solar energy variations is probably the biggest driver of climate cycles.

Answer 8

It's one piece of a solution.

One idea is to seed the ocean with nutrients to grow a whole lot more plankton (tiny plants). They capture CO2, and later carry it to the ocen floor.

There's more ocean to grow plankton than there is land to grow plants.

Answer 9

Here is a link for everything you need to know about it!!
http://video.google.com/url?docid=-4520665474899458831&esrc=sr2&ev=v&q=Global+warming+swindle&vidurl=http://video.google.com/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D-4520665474899458831%26q%3DGlobal%2Bwarming%2Bswindle&usg=AL29H211315vkBsvVwxwbq_e5R7qaV9yvA