Is it more realistic to lower green house gas emissions or to sequester them out of the air?

Question

I feel like it's not realistic to reduce our green house gas emissions. I'm probably being pessimistic, but I was wondering if maybe sequestration was the key to solving global warming.

Please only answer this if you know what you're talking about :)

Answer 1

i'm really skeptical of sequestration.

where?

down unused oil or gas wells?

deep in the ocean?

several years ago, denver tried to dispose of it's sewage by pumping it underground.  pretty soon they started to have earthquakes.  when they stopped, so did the quakes.

in the ocean is worse.  there's considerable life there, that would likely not do well when subjected to the increased CO2 levels, and the acid that would form in response to the added CO2.

it's just time to realize that "free" energy (maybe not politically correct this year) will not last forever, and get moving on it's replacement.  then everybody wins.  even those who deny that there's a problem.

Answer 2

i think it will take a long time to lower the emissions of green house gases.  I think we should begin sequestering it in the easier forms of it.  Nothing too dramatic like fertilizing the ocean with iron, but another form.  People tend to be unsure about using alternative energy unless it is accepted in the us; for example, hybrid cars.  Once they are credited, the emissions will lessen.

Answer 3

If by green house gases you mean CO2, then since trees need it to survive, plant more trees.

Realistically, CO2 represents only 0.2 % of the green house gases.  97% is water vapor and I don't think we want to get rid of that.  

I like water and I like trees, so that's my solution.

Answer 4

The green house gas is not there, The plants have removed most of the CO2. Methane is not there if U don't believe get some one to measure it .The Left propagates this so we will buy our oil from our Enemy. It is not a very good LIE.