Presently, humanity can not live without electricity and as on today, electricity for all can not be produced without burning fossil fuels. Capturing carbon dioxide is a good solution. But the natural process of capturing CO2 through vegetations is more cost-effective, for which we have to control population. My country India is one example with a government quite oblivious to human problem of overpopulation. This should be deplored internationally.
I object to the wording of your ballot. I clicked on the link, "click here to vote" and found my vote was registered. I had no opportunity to vote with a "nay", nor any means of retrieving my incorrectly counted ballot. PLEASE REMOVE MY VOTE INDICATING SUPPORT FOR THIS REPORTER.
I hope that in the future you will provide a link whereby those of us who feel that the author of such an article DOES NOT DESERVE AN EARTH JOURNALISM AWARD will have their negative view recognized. Indeed, the framing of your ballot will undoubtedly provide an invalid result, similar to a bunch of hanging chads, and worse, will suggest that there is overwhelming support for articles supporting sequestration -- which there is not.
Addendum to previous comment: only in the last paragraph does Mr. Biello reveal the scope of the cost of sequestration. The plant in Germany which strips out 200 tonnes of CO2 per day costs $100 million. A typical 1000 MW plant (supplying the electrical energy for about 800,000 US residents) produces about 30,000 tonnes of CO2 each day....
The author also makes no reference to the Phase Diagram of CO2. To do so would let the cat out of his bag as to the extraordinarily high pressures and low temperatures required to liquify (and store as a liquid!) carbon dioxide.
© 2009 Internews Europe | Contact us | Web design