It's actually pretty well indicated that mineral sequestration is a viable method for reducing emissions, and it wouldn't have such an extreme effect on the surrounding ecology as using living organisms (the algae mentioned above me) to sequester CO2. Here is the original article outlining this process. I bet no one will really want to read that, but it basically says that we could get rid of all the carbon emissions increases since the industrial revolution.

Yes, let's sequester our CO₂ through fracking. :/

Actually, the rather speculative estimate of 1 billion tonnes given is only around 3% of current global emissions. Admittedly, this is for "Oman alone", but there is no information provided on how common the relevant rock formations are. The article seems to imply that they are particularly common in Oman.

To absorb the historical emissions as well, you would need to sequester something of the order of 1000 billion tonnes.

I think mineral sequestering will prove to be a significant contributor, but please don't overstate the case.

The rock formations are very common, but they aren't often seen on the surface because they are very chemically reactive with water, they're normally a few kilometers down.

Carbon capture from the smokestack will create significant exhaust backpressure, which will reduce generation efficiency by up to 25%. There's also the other major component of hydrocarbon combustion: water vapor. In the worst case, methane combustion, water vapor makes up 2/3 of the volume of the exhaust (the best case, naphthas, have about 3/4 CO₂ by volume). I'm wondering whether CO₂ or H₂O is favored by olivine, and I don't know enough chemistry to answer that question.

Coal doesn't have much hydrogen, so water vapor isn't a problem. But coal has a bunch of impurities (many of them heavy metals) that, when they're not crapping up our air, get trapped in expensive fly-ash scrubbers. If carbon capture tech is placed after scrubbers, coal plants will be more expensive than they currently are, which utilities and consumers won't like (coal's currently the cheapest power source in the US and many other parts of the first world). If carbon capture is used before or instead of scrubbers, the minerals used may be coated and rendered useless by those impurities, like lead used to do to automotive exhaust catalysts.

Carbon capture at the source also does nothing about fossil fuels used for transportation. It'll be impractical to implement on automobiles. It may be implementable on ships, rail, and possibly trucks, but the effect on efficiency will raise operating costs that will be passed on to the rest of the economy in the form of higher prices on pretty much every physical product.

So capturing it at the source is problematic or impossible. What about capturing it from the atmosphere? The concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere is a couple hundred ppm. Water vapor has a higher concentration than that in hot, humid areas (which also tend to be heavily populated). That brings us back to the open question from the first paragraph. We could sidestep the problem by dehumidifying the air before running it over our carbon capture rocks, but industrial-scale dehumidifying is expensive, bringing us back to raised costs, this time with much lower CO₂ concentrations.

And then there's the difficulty, expense, and energy required to dig all this olivine up from 3 miles down. There's a reason miners prefer to take the top off a mountain rather than dig into it.

Carbon capture may well have a place in the future energy ecosystem, but it seems to me that it's a band-aid over a sucking chest wound, not a real solution.

That humans emit large amounts of CO₂, I am certain. That it's emission causes "global warming," seems likely, but I sincerely doubt that it will be as bad as some say it will, e.g. <(quoted from a year ago)
The alarmism surrounding global warming is disappointing, to say the least. We ought to be extremely cautious about making such overarching assertions regarding aspects of our environment about which scientists know so little (I know far less!). I found this article to be helpful. I realize it's an editorial, but it never even says that global warming doesn't occur, merely that drastic policy changes are unwise and, most likely, unwarranted.

The globe will start cooling in a decade or so. Then people will advocate more pollution. Sensational journalism causes sensationalism.

What, you're calling the idea of global warming "sensational journalism?"

Indeed. All the peer-reviewed publications are sensational. Eccentric even.

Actually, in that article they say that journalism regarding Global Warming is sensationalist, not the theory. They even say, "it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet." So those scientists, dissenters to the climate change theory, even don't write off the peer-reviewed literature completely. And they all have the right and should put in their own peer-reviewed rebuttals (and they probably do).

Is there sensationalism around journalism regarding just about every major issue? Definitely and unfortunately. Does that mean the issues themselves are creations of sensationalism? Not inherently. In this case, the issue is the creation of the peer-review process and scientific study.

Even if there isn't a large amount of warming, (which can be debated, though most scientists agree with that position,) there is still a large issue with just having large amounts of carbon in the atmosphere, and that issue is sea water acidification, which prevents phytoplanckton from growing properly, which will disrupts the entire ocean's food chain.

I HATE THIS!

There are too many useless studies proving global warming exists. And maybe a small handful in comparison that "prove" it false. C'mon, people! Temperatures are at a record high, ice caps are melting; what on earth are we waiting for!?! Suddenly someone says, "Wait! It's ALL a FAKE!" and we all turn our heads and the debate is on again, with the global warming pros stating the same old facts over and over each time. We have the evidence. Those oblivious to global warming say they have evidence, but it comes up dry on the proving ground.

This shouldn't even be here any more.

We're all going to die anyway, why go on with life?

That's rather nihilistic, isn't it?

Those are kind of opposite statements:

"There's nothing we can do about it before it happens, why try." In other words, we cannot prevent it, why not just live out our lives until it happens.

"I'm going to die, why bother to live." In other words, we cannot prevent it, why not stop our lives now.

The two do not seem congruent to me.

It seems the best we can do is to slow it.

Fund NASA and hope we can start on the moon!

mr awesome, let us get something straight, yes climate change is a natural process but it has undeniably been sped up and altered by human actions. second,can you compile a list of these gov. taxes that support measures to help slow and prevent climate change. no you can not..... and even if you could the amount of money spent on these programs is so infinitesimal that it is irrelevant. the gov. does not support combating climate change because its interests are in things that directly and indirectly affect climate change.... for example oil..... we went to war for it. maybe if we worked to fight climate change its negative effects like droughts and hurricanes coul be slowed down. maybe we wont end up losing Florida (if you dont get the reference look at charts that show the rise in sea level and how it affects florida.

Losing Florida wouldn't be much of a loss.

I think that, regardless of global warming, we need to cut down on pollution because it has measurable affects on small animals, like fish. I would rather err on the side of caution, especially as someone who wants children some day. The mercury levels in fish are pretty crazy--and we eat that. Why are we poisoning our food?

('What if it turns out global warming was just a lie to make us better people?')

Sort of related: We had to watch Food Inc, a movie about the awful state of food production (specifically fast food, but other products, as well) in the U.S. It made me want to start a garden and never trust anyone else with my food ever again.

That stuff is an issue, and, if the government doesn't start to address it soon, it will become a HUGE issue.

Agriculture, large industries and factories are the main problem with global warming and most environmental issues. In more consumer based societies such as the US, we generate many of the problems. In my opinion all it takes is for more people to become disciplined and self-reliant. If people lived in smaller self-sufficient communities that might help, still I am not sure how to fix the problem on a large scale even if that is a solution.

So we seal ourselves off from the outside world? Economics is based on the fact that we cannot produce everything we want ourselves. I'd much prefer my Japanese videogames and my beef and my lettuce and my laptop.

Beef and lettuce are where we could best make a difference. The carbon costs of shipping meat and produce (which could feasibly be produced locally) is rather high.

Well there are a lot of things that Mississippi cannot produce very well.

And what about New York?

I did not mean trade should be abolished. Local communities only import where necessary, but seriously, people in first world countries are much too selfish to give up convenience and affluence just as you yourself have said. I think tackling the largest problems one step at a time is the best way. Agriculture and society can not simply change overnight. I still eat beef and pork while meat factories produce 70% of greenhouse gases. The thing is, healthy avenues are opening up. You can now purchase organic open range meat not produced in a factory, more expensive but well worth it if you choose to make that your moral obligation. Just look at what causes the most harm to your local communities environment.

Is organic free-range really healthier for the environment, though? Intuitively, I'm thinking no. You're talking more grazing land per cow, for one. If we're wanting a low impact on the environment, I'm not sure how taking up more land for the same product is good environmentalism. Since organic and free-range food is big business, it's not like we're talking small homestead farms producing this stuff. If I remember right, somewhere in the neighborhood of 80% of California's organic produce comes from just four or five farms, all owned by the same people who own all the regular produce.

It'd be great if all food was locally grown by friendly rural stereotypes, but we have seven billion people to feed and like I said I'm not entirely sure organic locavorism is the answer to the environmental problem.

What we really need is to go up. Space-based hydroponics stations. Cover mercury in solar panels and use that for energy.