Editor, Exchange Magazine

Saint Louis Park, MN - Cutting emissions is ridiculous, because the CO2 will soon be used as fuel stock, and we can remove the CO2 from the air profitably. Sound like science fiction? Try science fact:

"Still as ambitious as ever, (Craig Venter) just announced at the TED conference: "We have modest goals of replacing the whole petrochemical industry and becoming a major source of energy, we think we will have fourth-generation fuels in about 18 months, with CO2 as the fuel stock." What’s this fourth-generation fuel he’s talking about? Biofuel alternatives to oil are third-generation.

The next step is life forms that feed on CO2 and give off fuel such as methane gas as waste, according to Venter."

– "Geneticist Craig Venter Wants to Create Fuel from CO2," TreeHugger.com

Naturally evolved organisms already exist that eat CO2 and excrete fuel, but the limiting factor is getting enough CO2 from the air. Air is much less than 1% CO2 now. The efficiency can be improved using genetic engineering, and a suicide gene added to assure the GMO couldn’t live outside a lab.

Or,
Expensively cutting our emissions fast and drastically is ridiculous, because sulfate particles can be injected into the upper atmosphere, reducing the amount of solar radiation that strikes the Earth:

"The Panel (on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming) calculated that adding stratospheric aerosol dust to the stratosphere would cost just pennies per ton of CO2 mitigated."

–"The Incredible Economics of Geoengineering"

The total cost would be around 10 billion dollars a year, and using engineered particles could lower the cost 90%!

Stabilizing atmospheric concentrations requires a 60-80% cut in CO2 emissions worldwide, a wildly expensive prescription. Ironically, CO2 in the air could be an asset. Besides, there is a very inexpensive alternative mitigation strategy.

It is an unfeasible strategy to cut world-wide emissions so fast and drastically that either abrupt climate change or runaway global warming are avoided.

Furthermore, carbon sinks will become carbon emitters as it warms, not only significantly reducing the amount of CO2 nature removes from the air, but dramatically increasing the amount of natural greenhouse gas emissions that go into the air, overwhelming any cuts we make.

Now, I’ll add another reason: it is ridiculous.

It is ridiculous to make expensive emission cuts to remove a potential asset from the air.

Brad Arnold
3033 Monterey Avenue
Saint Louis Park, MN 55416
USA
dobermantmacleod@aol.com
952-924-0076