BrianS’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  It might be useful in finding solutions if people lowered their 100% certainty level that one technology won't work or another technology will. As for me, I'm desperate. That means try everything. I have no idea if CCS will work, but even if it adds 60% to the cost of coal power, that could be a politically feasible number. More important, Dave's math is unclear - read page 22 of the link he gives (and it's not to a Nature article). The 10% figure is for all CO2 emissions, not 10% of global coal emissions. CCS is for coal, so this is an apples and oranges comparison. And the infrastructure involved, anyway, is injection infrastructure, not all oil infrastructure. The scale of the challenge is much less than suggested. Two other points: F James Handley quotes a study about pulverized coal plants, but the real option for CCS is with IGCC coal plants. And finally, with friends like Bob Armstrong and the Breakthrough Institute, new technological approaches to climate change have no need for enemies.On Is "we're going to burn the coal anyway" an argument for carbon sequestration? posted 6 days, 13 hours ago 40 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Here's some data: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt You can find lots more at the root URL. Have fun.On "Global cooling" scam debunked yet again posted 3 weeks, 5 days ago 17 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I've argued a long time for a "Greening the Chamber" movement that would use green business involvement in the Chamber to change its neandertal policies. The other option is for responsible businesses to quit the Chamber. The problem is that these two options are mostly contradictory. Either good businesses should stay in and fight the good fight within the Chamber with no more than a few high-profile resignations, or they should all get out. I tend to think that the former is a more realistic option.On Corporations call off the old green battle, but Chamber of Commerce soldiers on [UPDATED] posted 1 month, 4 weeks ago 4 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Very interesting - it sounds like it's better than carbon neutral - it is carbon negative until soil carbon reaches saturation levels. Is that right?  The only other realistic examples of carbon negative processes that I know of are some experimental ideas for cement making, and biomass power coupled with carbon sequestration.  (There are some open-air carbon capture ideas that seem like pipe dreams to me.)

  It would be interesting to hear more about the drawbacks.  I was a little unclear  on that after reading the text, but it sounds like it may be expensive.

  On Biochar as the new black gold posted 3 months, 1 week ago 7 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Thanks for the link, but it's not directly on point, I think.  The press release never defines "efficiency" but I'm guessing it refers to economic efficiency - what's the least amount of money needed to get enough land to supply an adequate diet.  It's still not a comparison of gas emissions.  CLWeber's last post above does do a comparison of beef to poultry, and it's not good (yes, some factors are left out, but there's a huge gap to overcome).  I'd guess poultry is probably three times worse for gas emissions than eating vegetarian.

  On Debunking the meat/climate change myth posted 3 months, 1 week ago 92 Responses