Responding first to the last statement:

[quote=ewmayer;149881]The *only* true long-term solution is to drastically curb our burning of fossil fuels.[/quote]Did you read the [I]Scientific American[/I] September 2006 special issue? (I think the issue theme title was something like "Energy's Future: Beyond Carbon".)

It laid out how the energy needs for the coming century will need to be met by a wide array of methods. Some of them were how best to proceed with fossil fuels while the renewable sources were ramped up -- our civilization is now so dependent on fossil fuels that there's _no practical way to do without them_ during the next century. Instead, what we have to do, _while ramping up renewable sources_, is to minimize fossil-fuel ill effects.

One -- just one, not the whole spectrum -- of those ways to deal with fossil fuels until their energy contribution can be replaced is carbon sequestration.

The [B]real[/B] "true long-term solution" involves a variety of measures. I heartily agree with the [U]spectrum of measures[/U] laid out by that [I]Scientific American[/I] issue, and at no time have considered any particular part of that spectrum, be it carbon sequestration or developing renewable energy sources or any other, to be the whole story.

Also, my discussions here generally are concerned about the next century, not beyond. The carbon crisis is now, and many measures can be taken to minimize anthropogenic global warming during this crucial transition century.

- - -

Now, going back to the rest in order:

[quote]Also, your claim that sequestration means "no emissions" of CO2 is specious - the fuel-burners still emit the CO2,[/quote]Oh, come on -- you know very well that by "emission" I meant something like "releasing freely into the atmosphere".

[quote]just instead of venting it into the atmosphere,[/quote]See? You knew very well that sequestration meant "instead of letting it go into the atmosphere". That "specious"/"fuel-burners" strawman could instead have been an argument with merit, if you had one.

[quote]they pump it deep underground.[/quote]... as one method, not the only one. Sequestration by reacting carbon with certain minerals to produce stable carbon-bearing compounds is another potential branch of this field.

[quote]In the short term, that seems a neat have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too solution: "Let`s put it somewhere where it can do no harm while we work on the *real* solution." Suuuure ... I stand by my claim that humans have shown over and over again throughout our history that out of sight truly is out of mind and that effective sequestration technologies would likely lead to us burning more fossil fuels, not less.[/quote]... and I stand by my claim that this is a matter of education and psychology, not the presence of certain technologies.

Did the introduction of seat belts, shoulder belts and airbags in cars lead to some folks' driving more recklessly than they would have if those were not present? Probably so, for some fraction of drivers. (When I was young, I occasionally drove more recklessly than I would have if not tightly belted-in.) Would we be better off without those measures than with them, for the reason that they result in more reckless driving by that fraction of drivers? No. These safety measures are a net plus, and so is sequestration.

Shall we roll back antipollution measures such as smokestack gas scrubbing, because they lead to our burning more fossil fuels, not less?

[quote]Burning fossil fuels releases many other more-noxious compounds [NOx, SO2, Mercury, i.e. the oxidation products of whatever non-carbon compounds were in the coal or oil]. Separating these from the CO2 is known to be quite expensive, and sequestration will provide a disincentive to do so.[/quote]Is that supposed to be an [I]anti[/I]sequestration point -- that reducing the need for separations means that type of expense will be lower??

1) Technology exists, if needed -- such separation is already being done at some fossil-fuel power stations.

2) If we bury the SO[sub]2[/sub] and mercury along with the CO[sub]2[/sub], the sulfur and mercury ... wind up back underground ... like the carbon does.

It's true the NOx wasn't underground to start with ... so it'll just have to do its smog-generating reactions down there instead of aboveground.

[quote]So answer me this: Assuming that human nature will not change radically [which seems a safe bet to me], what will be the result of pumping ever more CO2 underground, instead of allowing it to be processed by photosynthetic means, as happens to atmospheric CO2?[/quote]The result will be that more carbon is underground, and less is in the atmosphere, than would be the case of no underground sequestration.

(You know that there are natural ways in which CO[sub]2[/sub] leaves the atmosphere [I]other than[/I] via photosynthesis, don't you? Are you worried that the plants will starve? Why did you ask this question?)

[quote]How much do you want to bet that, just as poorer nations of the world often end up as dumping grounds for the solid refuse of the big consumer nations, poor nations will end up "competing" for the right to be paid money to have the CO2 of the industrialized nations dumped under their doorsteps, as it were, because pro-environmental groups in the CO2-producing countries will fight [and rightly so] against sequestration there?[/quote]<begin sarcasm>Oh, that's right. I forgot -- we need to stop recycling our used computers and TVs and other electronic appliances because some recyclers subsequently ship all that stuff to poor nations where low-paid people with no protections against the toxic substances perform the disassemblies. I saw a show about that on TV just a few nights ago! See? Recycling kills and disables people -- therefore, recycling is bad and shouldn't be done.

Just like driving should be abolished because some people drive drunk, and gas- or oil-burning furnaces should be banned because a misadjusted one can emit carbon monoxide and kill people, and airplanes should not be allowed to be based in poor nations because poorer maintenance standards there leads to more crashes (shucks, airplanes ought to be banned everywhere, because of all the crashes that happen all over the world. Trains, too.), and ... <end sarcasm>

[quote]How many Lake Nyos-style events are you willing to live with per annum?[/quote]How many auto accidents are you willing to live with out there in freeway-happy California?

You seem to be envisioning some really, really stupid siting, construction and nonmonitoring of sequestration areas, if you're talking about multiple Nyos/Monoun/Kivu-type events each year.

[quote=petrw1;149899]3. Warting (a stretch) ... the warts are the corporations or countries ignoring the long term impacts of Global warming and continuing to endanger the climate.[/quote]

That might be going a bit too far. And for any peole (e.g. cmd) who doant speek gud Inglish, 'warking' is not a word.

[QUOTE=10metreh;150328]That might be going a bit too far. And for any peole (e.g. cmd) who doant speek gud Inglish, 'warking' is not a word.[/QUOTE]
Mockery is cheap. Are you competent in any language other than English?

[QUOTE=99.94;150396]Mockery is cheap. Are you competent in any language other than English?[/QUOTE]Is he (10metreh) competent in English?

Paul

I am competent in English. The speling misstaiks wer oanly a joac.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;150305]You seem to be envisioning some really, really stupid siting, construction and nonmonitoring of sequestration areas, if you're talking about multiple Nyos/Monoun/Kivu-type events each year.[/QUOTE]

That is exactly what I am envisioning, as a product of the inevitable learning curve that comes with any significantly new technology, coupled with the equally inevitable human stupidity, bureaucratic inertia and incompetence, and outright greed.

For you to dismiss such concerns as "simply a matter of education and psychology" is by far the more radical proposition. Education is no proof against someone trying to game the system for profit.

Also, my proposal [which on the automotive front translates to 'drive smaller, drive less'] would significantly reduce automotive fatalities, so not sure what you were 'driving' at with your comment about CA roads.

[quote=ewmayer;150524]That is exactly what I am envisioning, as a product of the inevitable learning curve that comes with any significantly new technology, coupled with the equally inevitable human stupidity, bureaucratic inertia and incompetence, and outright greed.

For you to dismiss such concerns as "simply a matter of education and psychology" is by far the more radical proposition.[/quote]... and is both a misquotation and misconstruction of what I wrote!

1) I wrote, "... this is a matter of education and psychology". I did not write "simply" or state that this matter was simple.

2) In my statement, "I stand by my claim that this is a matter of education and psychology", "this" referred to what I had just quoted from you previously in that posting: "In the short term, that seems a neat have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too ... humans have shown over and over again throughout our history that out of sight truly is out of mind and that effective sequestration technologies would likely lead to us burning more fossil fuels, not less."

What I was addressing there ("In the short term ...") is not the same thing as "such concerns" about "inevitable learning curve ...human stupidity, bureaucratic inertia and incompetence, and outright greed". Conflating them was not proper.

My propositions are not radical.

[quote]Education is no proof against someone trying to game the system for profit.[/quote]Whether or not that is true, it is false to claim or imply that I proposed education as proof against gaming the system.

Walking causes more co2 emissions than driving the same distance:

[url]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece[/url]

[quote] “Driving a typical UK car for 3 miles [4.8km] adds about 0.9 kg [2lb] of CO2 to the atmosphere,” he said, a calculation based on the Government’s official fuel emission figures. “If you walked instead, it would use about 180 calories. You’d need about 100g of beef to replace those calories, resulting in 3.6kg of emissions, or [b]four times[/b] as much as driving.[/quote]

edit: Cycling is about 3 times more efficient per calorie than walking, but this still isn't enough to compete with the lower co2 emissions of driving.

[QUOTE=MooooMoo;151040]Walking causes more co2 emissions than driving the same distance:

[url]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece[/url]
[quote]“Driving a typical UK car for 3 miles [4.8km] adds about 0.9 kg [2lb] of CO2 to the atmosphere,” he said, a calculation based on the Government’s official fuel emission figures. “If you walked instead, it would use about 180 calories. You’d need about 100g of beef to replace those calories, resulting in 3.6kg of emissions, or four times as much as driving. [/quote]

edit: Cycling is about 3 times more efficient per calorie than walking, but this still isn't enough to compete with the lower co2 emissions of driving.[/QUOTE]The only thing the conveniently forgot to mention was where the carbon is coming from. Driving burns fossil fuels (non-replaceable stored carbon), whereas walking/cycling burns food (replaceable recycled carbon). Hardly a fair comparison since driving adds to the overall carbon in the atmosphere and walking/cycling is neutral.

[QUOTE=MooooMoo;151040]Walking causes more co2 emissions than driving the same distance: [url]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece[/url]

edit: Cycling is about 3 times more efficient per calorie than walking, but this still isn't enough to compete with the lower co2 emissions of driving.[/QUOTE]AAnother thing that is forgotten : the driver of the car uses calories as well. Walking or cycling is not that intensive. The whole article is full of fallacies. But it is true that ecology is more complex than some politicians wants us to thiink.

Jacob

[QUOTE=S485122;151074]AAnother thing that is forgotten : the driver of the car uses calories as well. Walking or cycling is not that intensive.[/QUOTE]
You're right, but this effect isn't that great. It'll take a person an hour to walk 3 miles, while the same trip can be completed by car in 5-10 minutes.