Can you break down CO2 into non-environment harming elements?

Question

If you are able to take carbon emissions and turn them into something non-harmful to the environment, why haven't they developed that?

Answer 1

Well, I suppose the simplest answer is that combustion (burning, or oxidation) is really easy to do.  Breaking apart a very stable compound is not (that is why CO2 is produced - it is the stable product of the reaction).  Not even sure that there would be a net gain in energy from it, which would kind of defeat the purpose of burning as a source of energy.  I suppose I could calculate it, but that sounds like work and it is three in the morning.

Answer 2

"I believe its the other way around - a cliamte temperature increase will result in a CO2 increase"

I am glad to see you agree with Al Gore. You can break it down but like what was said above it would probably produce more CO2 than it gets rid of.

Answer 3

First of all, CO2 is not a carbon emission. The term "carbon" is an incorrect abbreviation of carbon dioxide.  Carbon dioxide indeed contains carbon, but they are very different substances.

CO2 contains 1 atom of carbon and two atoms of oxygen in a very stable and non-toxic compound. It is not directly harmful to the environment, except that some people think it has the effect of trapping heat in the atmosphere. Al Gore and his followers suggest that climate records show a CO2 increase, and then the temperature will increase.  I believe its the other way around - a climate temperature increase will result in a CO2 increase.

Breaking down CO2 into its primary elements C and O can be done, just like breaking down water into H and O, buts its very expensive and creates even more CO2 emissions. Unless of course its chlorophyll based.

EDIT - The media commonly mixes carbon and carbon dioxide up as if they are perfectly interchangeable. Glad you understand there is a difference!

Dr. Syun Akasofu, one of the world's most respected scientists at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, has collected hundreds if not thousands of years of detailed climate data from various sources.  His data are quite conclusive - there have been multiple warming and cooling cycles in our history.  His data also show that when atmospheric temperature levels increase, the CO2 levels increase. That is fundamentally different from Al Gore's scissor lift graph which shows CO2 levels increasing and then the temperature increasing.   The relative timing is critical.  With all due respect to Al Gore, Dr. Akasofu is imminently more qualified to collect and interpret these types of data.

Global warming is real, due mostly to the perfectly natural Milankovitch Cycle, but the relationship between human activies and climate change is not clear.  I'm not suggesting that our environment is not being altered by human activities, I'm just saying you shouldn't allow crafty salesmanship to win you over instead of hard science.

To quote from one of Dr. Akasofu's many excellent articles, "energy conservation is important and is a much more accurate justification [of alarm] than reducing the release of CO2 for our future."