If keeping CO2 out of the air is so important to environmentalist why aren't they funding it?

Sam,

It does help to know the true facts of the matter and not a few biased and misrepresentative snippets.

The figure of £635 million is not the cost of creating a carbon capture and storage facility – it is the cost of renovating Hatfield Colliery and constructing a coal-fired power station, part of which would have incorporated CCS.

The whole project was a proposal of the firm Powerfuel which is owned by the coal magnate Richard Budge. Powerfuel has gone into liquidation so the construction project is not going ahead.

So the truth of the matter is completely different – it’s not £635 million to create a CCS facility but £635 million to build a coal-fired power station.

http://www.powerfuel.plc.uk/

PS – did you think about your question before posting it. The counter argument would be something like “I assume you’re concerned about the welfare and safety of children so why aren’t you funding hospitals and shelters for them”.

Uh, because they don't have 635 million pounds to throw around? I don't know the budgets of most environmental groups, but I'd be willing to bet that's far more than they have in the coffers. Also, that's one project out of possibly many that are worthy, so are these environmentalists supposed to fund all of them? Wouldn't it make more sense to have those that are profiting from CO2 release to fund it, and don't they have a lot more money? The last time I checked Exxon' profits, they made that much in profit in about one week.

Well, that is most exact and open fact of CORRUPTION, that I've ever heard. First, it's TOTAL bull$ht, useful only for completely overwashed brains. The temperature of boiling is 195K and the pressure of storing it in liquid form is very high for that scale. And the second - the countries, produced this chemical substance in the past, like UK and US today export all the factories to China and Malaysia and trying to suck the money from them for all reasons. They've get only big KICK. The all world is tired of stupid anglo-suxx!

i'm no longer against it. whether like maximum AGW proponents and in assessment to many AGW doubters, I recommend a multi-pronged mindset to recommendations as there is not any one, undemanding thank you to confirm the subject. The CO2 scrubber is a great concept. There are, whether, nevertheless some significant annoying circumstances to be triumph over earlier it fairly is seen a useful device interior the combat against AGW: a million) it truly is barely useful for clean CO2 being produced, no longer CO2 that has already been released 2) that's barely useful in great burning of carbon (e.g. capability flowers) 3) that's a clean technologies and can take an prolonged time again on line in any significant quantity 4) It does no longer something to motivate a decrease in CO2 production interior the 1st place (the genuine answer!) 5) that's horrendously costly and, earlier somewhat some money is poured in (sustain R&D spending yet hesitate begfore spending greater), it would desire to be ultimate to work out if a greater useful use of the money may be recycling or tidal capability or preparation, etc. 6) as quickly as you have scrubbed the carbon, then what? It nevertheless desires to be saved someplace and it truly is an argument it fairly is fairly plenty in its infancy - it would desire to be like nuclear capability - good interior the fast term yet merely growing to be greater advantageous issues for the destiny.

Probably because it's idiotic to rely on donations to build a factory that would have cost a US equivalence of 6.56 billion dollars.

Silly person, thinking spending 6.56 billion dollars like that for such a small benefit is a good deal.

Environmentlist only care about AGW as long as they can make money off of the scam. You will never catch them spending a dime to solve one of there problems.

What's more fun than spending your own money? Answer: spending somebody else's money.