They fail to say that CO2 isn't a pollutant. If CO2 IS a pollutant, why do plants need CO2? Why do plants at nurseries grow faster when CO2 is injected into the greenhouse if CO2 is a pollutant?
What they also don't say is that it has been proven that the average temperature on other planets rises and falls along with the average temperature on Earth. So what is common to temperatures on Mars and Earth? THE SUN.
9000 scientists have signed a petition saying climate change is isn't man-made.
@austinallenfin what we really really really need to do is to invest tens of billions of dollars to invent a way to safely and permanently make atomic waste disappear.
You know there are these things called Plants that use solar energy to automatically take CO2 from the atmosphere and turn it into oxygen. Too bad they're not investing millions into creating more forests.
@aquateeno In addition, don't forget about the oceans, they capture a large percentage of carbon dioxide already and CCS technologies are being developed to inject the CO2 a thousand plus meters below the sea floor.
Carbon capture and storage acually massively reduces the efficiency of a power station by 25 - 40 %, it sounds like a really good idea and in principal it is, but with our looming energy crisis can we afford to be consuming more energy when we no its running out. This is also not a solution to developing nations as its expensive and also they get no return for just reducing co2 emissions, so they probably wont inforce it.
Quite interesting ;-) Sounds to me like someone searching for excuses. Good PR strategy, but do you rely today on any scientific statement, which was made 1000 years before!? So how could some dare to say that this will be secure for 1000 years!! UNPROFESSIONAL !! Does Shell care about your kids in 1000 years ! LOL... start exploring alternatives..
But doesn't capturing the carbon and store it take about 30% of the energy gained from it in the first place? Does it mean that every power station using CCS will increase its output by 30% to keep the same level as before?
Reducing population growth automatically reduces consumerism, automatically reduces carbon emissions. What of potable water and land erosion if population is not curtailed. A fresh economic model please. Bruce McGillis
It's not just about population growth, as countries such as the US still have much greater total consumption than other countries with higher populations, due to their per capita consumption being much higher than elsewhere. So its also about changing people's habits - ie making them consume less.
This video is a fair comment on the current status of CCS. It is absolutely necessary to mitigate CO2 emissions at large scale which is what CCS addresses. This is a not a 'nice to have', but along with energy efficiency & renewables and low carbon energy, we must do CCS to avoid dangerous climate change because the it can make a difference. There are no quick and easy fixes to the serious problem of rising CO2 levels.
This has been flagged as spam show
They fail to say that CO2 isn't a pollutant. If CO2 IS a pollutant, why do plants need CO2? Why do plants at nurseries grow faster when CO2 is injected into the greenhouse if CO2 is a pollutant?
What they also don't say is that it has been proven that the average temperature on other planets rises and falls along with the average temperature on Earth. So what is common to temperatures on Mars and Earth? THE SUN.
9000 scientists have signed a petition saying climate change is isn't man-made.
WKHalford 9 months ago
Aahahahaahahahaahahaah OoooooHhhh You are all so gullible. HEeeeeee is there somebody in there? Can you say "CLIMATEGATE"
YouriCarma 1 year ago
Comment removed
austinallenfin 1 year ago
@austinallenfin what we really really really need to do is to invest tens of billions of dollars to invent a way to safely and permanently make atomic waste disappear.
captinseperoth 1 year ago
You know there are these things called Plants that use solar energy to automatically take CO2 from the atmosphere and turn it into oxygen. Too bad they're not investing millions into creating more forests.
aquateeno 1 year ago 4
@aquateeno Ya. I guess there is more money in global taxation than there is in forestry.
This whole global warming scam is making people turn their backs on real problems. And then when the next ice age starts, they'll claim "success!"
Rhal95 1 year ago
@aquateeno not gonna happen as there is scarcity of land in many parts of the world already!!!
amritkar 11 months ago
@aquateeno In addition, don't forget about the oceans, they capture a large percentage of carbon dioxide already and CCS technologies are being developed to inject the CO2 a thousand plus meters below the sea floor.
IdeasforEarth 5 months ago
Comment removed
austinallenfin 1 year ago
Comment removed
austinallenfin 1 year ago
Carbon capture and storage acually massively reduces the efficiency of a power station by 25 - 40 %, it sounds like a really good idea and in principal it is, but with our looming energy crisis can we afford to be consuming more energy when we no its running out. This is also not a solution to developing nations as its expensive and also they get no return for just reducing co2 emissions, so they probably wont inforce it.
isaldur1 1 year ago
We can now capture and sequester carbon dioxide from power plants. We can even turn it into a plastic. Lets celebrate.
tnguyen318 1 year ago
Quite interesting ;-) Sounds to me like someone searching for excuses. Good PR strategy, but do you rely today on any scientific statement, which was made 1000 years before!? So how could some dare to say that this will be secure for 1000 years!! UNPROFESSIONAL !! Does Shell care about your kids in 1000 years ! LOL... start exploring alternatives..
sutcepsAspectus 2 years ago
climategate!!!!!
It's a SCAM!!!!!!
jdtvproducties 2 years ago
to hell with shell
sulkava 2 years ago
But doesn't capturing the carbon and store it take about 30% of the energy gained from it in the first place? Does it mean that every power station using CCS will increase its output by 30% to keep the same level as before?
alexgitt 2 years ago
what a load of crap
manque15 2 years ago
lmao shell has a youtube page.....dumb
cenasgay9111 2 years ago 3
@cenasgay9111 carsenogens liq/ dar5/ CO co @ 2.@2.
prandtlme 1 year ago
Reducing population growth automatically reduces consumerism, automatically reduces carbon emissions. What of potable water and land erosion if population is not curtailed. A fresh economic model please. Bruce McGillis
4062245 2 years ago
It's not just about population growth, as countries such as the US still have much greater total consumption than other countries with higher populations, due to their per capita consumption being much higher than elsewhere. So its also about changing people's habits - ie making them consume less.
donbradman334 1 year ago
Unless population growth is curtailed, carbon emissions will expand regardless. Bruce McGillis
4062245 2 years ago
Orly?
DavidEdwardSchnell 2 years ago
yet another ecological blasphemy
Misterutto 2 years ago
Storing CO2 in the empty vase in my kitchen??? Fair to say that most people still do not understand this about CO2:
"We're not storing it in vast caverns from which the CO2 might escape"
A lesson in Geology 101 please....
cappvideos 2 years ago
@cappvideos departur..l,.er enterprize' QUWIRKS in .
prandtlme 1 year ago
This video is a fair comment on the current status of CCS. It is absolutely necessary to mitigate CO2 emissions at large scale which is what CCS addresses. This is a not a 'nice to have', but along with energy efficiency & renewables and low carbon energy, we must do CCS to avoid dangerous climate change because the it can make a difference. There are no quick and easy fixes to the serious problem of rising CO2 levels.
Z57MM 2 years ago
Al Gore, call your office please, the e-mails have been discovered.
materialclassified 2 years ago
I've got an empty vase in my kitchen, I guess I could store some in there as well, or in the cuboard under the stairs? How about this matchbox...
bencassidy101 2 years ago