It's a fallacy to imagine two carbon cycles. There is one carbon cycle in living plants and animals and soil and oceans. Every aspect of the functioning of this planet and the life on it, has been to continually push carbon out of this cycle and into storage, whether that be by plant material being compressed into peat and lignite and coal, or the weathering of rock, or of the condensing of hydrocarbons being released from deep within the planet into storage vaults in the rocky deeps, or by tectonic shifts which bury ocean sediments deep under continental plates.
Note that "The Conversation" cannot accept any idea or concept, however good, unless it's source is a Professor at a University.
In describing "low-emissions technologies", perhaps Professor Morgan was thinking of some of the schemes in which for example, a steel-maker in switching to hydrogen de-oxidation of the iron ore, could sell a credit for that to another coke-burning steel maker who cannot yet switch fuels in a carbon-cap scenario, such as used in certain countries to pretend to limit industrial emissions. All that, of course, is more green hog-wash.
Imagining situations in which "if governments were serious" is just a pipe-dream; governments and business are inseparable; they are the two entities which endure, unlike us mugs which in time pass from the scene like a sigh in the wind. Like John Dewey said in 1905: "Politics is the shadow cast upon society by big business."
Now could you ever imagine getting a comment like this from "The Conversation"? Some old saying about Hell and freezing...
It's a fallacy to imagine two carbon cycles. There is one carbon cycle in living plants and animals and soil and oceans. Every aspect of the functioning of this planet and the life on it, has been to continually push carbon out of this cycle and into storage, whether that be by plant material being compressed into peat and lignite and coal, or the weathering of rock, or of the condensing of hydrocarbons being released from deep within the planet into storage vaults in the rocky deeps, or by tectonic shifts which bury ocean sediments deep under continental plates.
Note that "The Conversation" cannot accept any idea or concept, however good, unless it's source is a Professor at a University.
In describing "low-emissions technologies", perhaps Professor Morgan was thinking of some of the schemes in which for example, a steel-maker in switching to hydrogen de-oxidation of the iron ore, could sell a credit for that to another coke-burning steel maker who cannot yet switch fuels in a carbon-cap scenario, such as used in certain countries to pretend to limit industrial emissions. All that, of course, is more green hog-wash.
Imagining situations in which "if governments were serious" is just a pipe-dream; governments and business are inseparable; they are the two entities which endure, unlike us mugs which in time pass from the scene like a sigh in the wind. Like John Dewey said in 1905: "Politics is the shadow cast upon society by big business."
Now could you ever imagine getting a comment like this from "The Conversation"? Some old saying about Hell and freezing...