I don’t see any mention on your web site of Pyrolysis or Agrichar . Do you have projects in the planning stage on the carbon sequestration front?

The more you learn about this ancient technique of soil restoration the more you’ll see how elegant this solution can be for carbon sequestration, for us all.
Imagine putting the carbon tax funds into the hands of millions of peasant farmers all around the world, building their soil and their net worth at the same time. Please search “AGRICHAR” “BIOCHAR” or
“TERRA PRETA”

The idiotic (and, in my view, mythical) polarization of this issue is deconstructive…and both end-member ’sides’ are to blame. It’s time to work collectively…and the petroleum industry and infrastructure is part of that. I hope people wake up from this ‘us vs. them’ absolutism soon.

I’ve read your bio here http://www.buildings.com/ articles/ detail.aspx?contentID=1766

Could you point to some real, tangible solutions that you have invented, or helped develop , as a M.I.T. Ph.D. in physics ?

Something beyond words… words and more empty words.
Don’t answer, just think about it. Aren’t your talents wasted on being a propagandist ?

By the way – are you also an expert in hydrogen, as it says there ? Where has hydrogen disappeared nowadays ? The way of those abandoned wind farms in California ?

“but they have no solutions of their own to offer.”
Neither have you. Don’t dream. You’re just emitting more and more hot air… there is no substance to all your solutions, just feel-good empty, illusions.

A remark: when blackouts happen, as is normal in many countries (mainly in the third world) people buy home generators and produce pollution three time greater than power stations.

“We don’t need HIGHER production of oil”
That’s green ideology in a nutshell.
The demand for energy is rising, we DO need HIGHER production of oil, there is no other energy available, and capping oil production means – no energy.

Also, this constant griping that the government cannot solve problems is hard to understand. Under Nixon’s we got the National Environmental Policy Act (1969), EPA (1970), Clean Air Act (1970), Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act), Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (1972), and Endangered Species Act (1973). Under Ford we got the Safe Drinking Water Act (1974) and Toxic Substances Control Act (1976). Reagan signed the Montreal Protocol in 1987 and it was ratified in 1988. George Bush Sr. signed the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 that regulated more pollutants and implemented a cap-and-trade system that succeeded beyond all expectations. All of these solved real problems and we’re better off because of them. (I wish some had been more effective than they were, but they were definitely an improvement over BAU at the time they were signed.) Joe could no doubt tell the Clinton legacy much better than I.

The key premise of this blog — as underscored in the three recent posts on how scientists are underestimating climate change — is that we need to reduce CO2 emissions 60% to 80% by 2050, which means we need to reduce fossil fuel consumption by that amount. It won’t be easy. It particularly won’t be easy if we start subsidizing enhanced oil recovery by calling it carbon offsets.

We don’t need HIGHER production of oil, and certainly not from EOR. Offsets are a voluntary donation to displace one’s CO2 emissions, and thus should meet very high environmental standards. They can’t solve the climate problem, but they can serve a valuable purpose of funneling money toward jumpstarting the transition to a clean energy economy. EOR is not part of a clean energy economy and does not — and should not — be “jumpstarted.”

So Paul and Bill — I can’t agree with you. I would like to see a comprehensive apples-to-apples life-cycle analysis comparing CO2 EOR to regular oil, though.

Jacob — I am not a “green,” I am an energy analyst and technologist. I don’t hate oil and coal — I just hate what their emissions of greenhouse gases are doing to this planet. I don’t want to hinder production of oil, I just don’t wants to subsidize even more production of it.

As for coal, you missed the whole point of my post. The only way to save coal in the long-term is through carbon capture and storage, which we have not seriously begun pursuing.

I think jcwinnie’s point is well taken. People are stuck in BAU, even those who are concerned about global warming.

They believe in some mysterious notion of “green energy” that just does not exist. They believe that if people are forced to sit in the dark (because of blackouts) they’ll go out and invent green energy. They believe that by using brute force you can make people invent anything.