You may recall that I wrote a blog entitled, “There is always a big but” in which I gave an overview of
the future technologies that are being considered for extracting Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) from the
One of the technologies about which I wrote was carbon capture and storage. Just to remind you:
that is where big machines, kind of like vacuum cleaners, could suck carbon dioxide emissions out of
the air and store them underground. When I wrote about it, I meekly stated that this technology is
untested and would be expensive.
In their guest essay entitled, “Every Dollar Spent on This Climate Technology Is a Waste” that
appeared in the August 17 edition of the NYT, Charles Harvey and Kurt House savaged this
technology as being unworkable and a huge waste of resources. However, they did not suggest
In a letter to the editor that appeared in the August 25 edition of the NYT, Brian Houseal, chair of the
U.S. Biosphere Network, wrote “There is only one sure way that we know to achieve carbon capture
and storage: trees!”.
I would, and in fact, did go further in my blog, when I advocated for “. . . planting forests, restoring
wetlands, and encouraging agricultural practices that store carbon in the soil. Planting trees and
vegetation, along with topsoil, ‘has the technical potential’ to absorb 157 parts per million of CO2.”
This is the CCPP way, and it appears that it is being recognised by (at least a few) others as being the
most effective, most practical, and least expensive way of averting a climate crisis.