If you look beyond the claims made by so many companies using carbon offsets to work through a transition, a lot of fossil fuel is being consumed. Fossil fuels, for example, are all-encompassing of oil, natural gas, and coal. I've read how environmentalists consider natural gas the lesser of the three evils. So why is there, not some incentive to move away from the bad ones (mainly coal, oil only on smaller generators) to the good ones (like gas) during the transition? Natural gas can be burned to produce electricity, and carbon dioxide can be removed post-combustion. It's at a concentration and temperature conducive to being removed. I predict the handful of venture capital and government (via grants through Universities, etc.) will never make money and, as a result, will fade from the possible CO2 removal options. Let's agree to remove parts per million concentrations from atmospheric pressure air requires moving a lot of air, and increasing the pressure to force the reaction with a liquid adsorbent or capture with a solid adsorbent. As a result, the carbon offset you stated, costing $1,300 per ton, is the product of using a lot of power to move and compress the air. Given the fuel mix for energy, I would like to know if they can remove more CO2 than they are causing to be generated to operate their atmospheric CO2 vacuum cleaner.
I just wanted to let you know that your bashing of Chevron is misplaced. They are using the system in place and are one of thousands of companies using carbon offsets (green or not). Next time you buy anything electronic or anything from Walmart, or Hobby Lobby (most retailers), how did you get to where you purchased it? Most likely, on a ship burning oil (nasty version of oil to boot), the "thing" you buy would be multiples higher if they put the carbon offset tax on the item. What about your next hamburger, fried chicken, cornflakes, milk, etc.? Yeah, all carbon driven. We live in a petro-driven economy that will not change easily, not in my lifetime or my children's lifetime.
Hi Will,
Here is a post from Alex Epstein that you might want to read and consider his points. The title sort of tells it all.
https://open.substack.com/pub/alexepstein/p/green-energy-is-neither-energy-nor?r=wy9l1&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
If you look beyond the claims made by so many companies using carbon offsets to work through a transition, a lot of fossil fuel is being consumed. Fossil fuels, for example, are all-encompassing of oil, natural gas, and coal. I've read how environmentalists consider natural gas the lesser of the three evils. So why is there, not some incentive to move away from the bad ones (mainly coal, oil only on smaller generators) to the good ones (like gas) during the transition? Natural gas can be burned to produce electricity, and carbon dioxide can be removed post-combustion. It's at a concentration and temperature conducive to being removed. I predict the handful of venture capital and government (via grants through Universities, etc.) will never make money and, as a result, will fade from the possible CO2 removal options. Let's agree to remove parts per million concentrations from atmospheric pressure air requires moving a lot of air, and increasing the pressure to force the reaction with a liquid adsorbent or capture with a solid adsorbent. As a result, the carbon offset you stated, costing $1,300 per ton, is the product of using a lot of power to move and compress the air. Given the fuel mix for energy, I would like to know if they can remove more CO2 than they are causing to be generated to operate their atmospheric CO2 vacuum cleaner.
I just wanted to let you know that your bashing of Chevron is misplaced. They are using the system in place and are one of thousands of companies using carbon offsets (green or not). Next time you buy anything electronic or anything from Walmart, or Hobby Lobby (most retailers), how did you get to where you purchased it? Most likely, on a ship burning oil (nasty version of oil to boot), the "thing" you buy would be multiples higher if they put the carbon offset tax on the item. What about your next hamburger, fried chicken, cornflakes, milk, etc.? Yeah, all carbon driven. We live in a petro-driven economy that will not change easily, not in my lifetime or my children's lifetime.