Too little CO2 is a problem, but too much CO2 even more so. Not just for the climate, but for the oceans which will become more acidic if CO2 levels rise. So yes, look at the issue more carefully.

It’s almost funnier than that. They correctly point out that carbon monoxide is useful for a lot of chemical applications and even as a heating fuel. The funny part is that pretty much without exception everything we use it for converts it back to carbon dioxide. So, this would be expending energy and resources (a net negative effect on the environment) to create a catalyst (that is less effective than the means we already have to make carbon monoxide as a product), in order to convert carbon dioxide to caron monoxide which is then used in processes that change it back into carbon dioxide. The net effect is whatever waste energy and cost there is in producing the catalyst and process to capture and ship the CO compared to how it’s already sourced. No upside at all and certainly additional negative environmental effect in energy cost alone.

Hi Matt . I’m an active environmental campaigner who is extremely serious about trying to stop fossil fuel use. I too am skeptical about Carbon capture technologies, particularly since they are currently,and may well remain,incapable of bringing about reductions in CO2 on the scale at which we need to achieve them. BUT there would ,in fact be a huge difference between using CO2 captured from the atmosphere to produce fuel and using fossil fuels. The issue with fossil fuels is that we are releasing millions of years worth of stored Carbon ( largely in the form of CO2) over a ,geologically speaking , very short time period. That is what is increasing temperatures. If we could just keep cycling our CO2 it wouldn’t be such a problem ( though we should still try to reduce current atmospheric levels ). The issue for me with these technologies is that ( currently at least) they are not applicable at the scale we need them. But that’s no reason not to try…

Of course, 2LoT steps in and you’re going to be burning more fuel for the amount of fuel you produce, creating more CO2 than you convert.

the reason why we produce CO2 in the first place is because of we need to get energy
and CO2 is the product of burning combustible.
if we need to SPEND energy to convert it “back” from CO2 to CO
where would the energy come from ???
it s a bit like not burning fuel in the first place…

also CO itself is not that much better for us to manage
and as said above if it is then used back as source of energy (combustible)
then the whole cycle is then totally pointless…

Let’s zoom out a little, drop some of the assumptions, and look at the full role of carbon dioxide in the environment. Too little CO2 in the atmosphere will reduce plant growth worldwide and reduce agricultural yields. It will reduce the greenhouse effect until the planet is too cold.

Everything must exist in balance.

There is a natural carbon cycle on this planet, and you know what falls into it? All life. Your body. You are a carbon-based lifeform. Carbon is not bad. Imbalance is bad. We need to change the discourse so that we do not run off a bloody cliff with this insanity.

Demonize the elemental foundation of life itself at your peril. That said, controlling the element that determines how many plants can grow and therefore controlling all life on this planet sounds nice and convenient to certain agendas, doesn’t it?

Wake up. Ditch the rhetoric. Look at the issue more carefully. Don’t be bullied into turning off your brain and turning into a drooling mess whose most nuanced scientific thought is “carbon baaaad”. Acknowledge its role in all life and stop promoting the narrative that it’s something fundamentally harmful and scary.

I’m at a loss to see the benefit of making fuels out of carbon dioxide pulled from the atmosphere. It seems the whole point of getting carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is to keep it out of the atmosphere. If instead all we get is a net zero change in carbon dioxide, what’s the point?