Han wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote in news:g0na0502lr3
@news2.newsguy.com:

Han wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in news:g0mksh11jc5
@news3.newsguy.com:

Han wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote in
m:
.... snip
that warehousing CO2 is going to take a huge amount of storage volume?

Of course there will always be NIMBY, but I think that filling
underground voids generated by mining would be a good place.


This is just amazing. The fear of a natural compound that is a very minor
atmospheric constituent and the product of perfect combustion. The idea
that humans can somehow influence the climate of the entire planet (of
which 3/4 is ocean) by the production of a minor atmospheric constituent is
pure hubris.

Can we foul our own nests? Absolutely, that's why smog controls and making
sure that industrial smokestacks are not causing severe local pollution.
But destroying the planet? It doesn't pass the laugh test. Yet so many
are buying in to it that they are willing to cause economic (and in other
countries survival) hardships on others rather than taking logical steps to
increase energy production. A growing, prosperous economy cannot continue
to use less and less energy (conservation) yet continue to grow and
prosper. When alternate sources become competitive, they will be used;
forcing their use and subsidizing it with other peoples' money is not the
development of alternate energy sources.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough