Tim Worstall

13 responses so far ↓

• 1 Kit // Jul 5, 2008 at 9:26 am

  If we could only think of a method to pull CO2 directly from the atmosphere, store it the ground where it is converted into an energy source for us to pump out when we need it.

• 2 ZT // Jul 5, 2008 at 9:40 am

  There is such a method. It’s called ‘photosynthesis’.

• 3 arthur clewley // Jul 5, 2008 at 9:47 am

  If only we could develop a way to make all car journeys downhill so we didn’t need to use the engine that too would be helpful

• 4 billadams // Jul 5, 2008 at 2:18 pm

  If only wishes were horses, then beggars could ride.

• 5 pj // Jul 5, 2008 at 3:39 pm

  I’m just trying to come to terms with the scale of the sort of plant that would be needed to do this. To suck in & process an entire atmosphere to remove 0.3% of it’s constituent gasses.

  Maybe we should terraform Mars as a small scale test project before we tackle the real thing.

• 6 AntiCitizenOne // Jul 5, 2008 at 4:54 pm

  > If a viable technology were developed to pull CO2 directly from that atmosphere, that too would be helpful.

  ZT has it. The chemical that makes plants green, namely Chlorophyll, eats CO2. CO2 is plant-food, not pollution. How ironic that the “green” religion is opposed to feeding the substance that they are branded on?

• 7 dearieme // Jul 5, 2008 at 9:48 pm

  “In addition, 80 per cent of the remaining reserves are controlled by governments – as opposed to companies”. The governments stole them; we could always steal them back again. But not while we’re led by plonkers like W.

• 8 The Remittance Man // Jul 6, 2008 at 11:16 am

  ZT beat me to the answer: God/nature/whatever did the work for us aeons ago. The plants Mr Oxburgh dreams about are called … er … plants.

• 9 Gareth // Jul 6, 2008 at 4:44 pm

  While photosynthesis is great it does use up a lot of land.

  Although nature got there before us, the problem is we are resourceful buggers. We use plants for stuff - eating, heating and the like, and any rubbish left over doesn’t usually go to waste either as it all has a value. It would be insensible to grow something and do nowt with it beyond chuck it down a mine or dump it into the deep oceans.

  To combant the pernicious rise in atmospheric plantfood we would have to not consume some of what grows, but store it. A resurgence of wooden stuff is in order. It’s all flimsy plastic and glass crap these days. I would like a good solid chair, a decent solid desk and a warm, solid house please. All built to last a lifetime and made by craftsmen.

• 10 agn // Jul 6, 2008 at 7:59 pm

  No pj, it’s 0.03% of the atmosphere that is CO2. And even if one were to heed the Hansen directive to reduce the CO2 level to 350ppm, this would require removing 0.004% of the atmosphere - still a lot, but you’re out by a magnitude of 100.

• 11 So Much For Subtlety // Jul 7, 2008 at 3:09 am

  This is what leads people to suggest fertilizing the oceans - if you add iron to the sea you encourage the production of plankton which remove CO2 from the atmosphere and, with luck, sink to the sea floor where we won’t hear from them again any time soon.

• 12 Serf // Jul 7, 2008 at 7:41 am

  If said technology were developed (gross stupidity aside) putting it into chimneys would seem slightly more productive.

• 13 gene berman // Jul 8, 2008 at 12:54 am

  gareth:

  See what So Much for Subtlety has said. And bear in mind that most of the photosynthesis that takes place on the planet does so in the water, rather than on land. I don’t know the precise proportion but believe it’s 60% or more.

Leave a Comment