Remember when you go to vote for Letlow in June.

Carbon capture is bunk.

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

quote:

---

Activist: "Your cows are putting carbon into the atmosphere."

Farmer: "Where did they get it?"

Activist: "What?"

Farmer: "The carbon. Where did the cow get it before it put it anywhere."

Activist: "From... eating?"

Farmer: "From eating grass. And where did the grass get it."

Activist: "The soil?"

Farmer: "The air. The grass pulled it out of the air last spring. The cow ate the grass. The cow breathed some of it back out. It went back into the air it came from."

Activist: "But it's still going into the atmosphere."

Farmer: "It's going back. There's a difference between a thing going somewhere and a thing going back. You've described a circle and you're frightened of it."

Activist: "Then just don't have the cow."

Farmer: "The grass still dies in autumn. It rots where it falls. The carbon goes back into the air either way, just without anyone getting fed in the middle."

Activist: "It's not that simple."

Farmer: "It's grass, cow, breath, grass. Or it's grass, rot, air, grass. Same circle, fewer dinners. If that's complicated for you I'd stay away from the water cycle. That one's got clouds in it."

---

Truth.

Nothing is lost and nothing is gained.
It's a cycle like the water cycle.
With biological pressures that push it back to center.

quote:

---

Remember when you go to vote n June.

---

quote:

---

Farmer: "It's going back. There's a difference between a thing going somewhere and a thing going back. You've described a circle and you're frightened of it.

---

The meme you cite is dishonest. It is correct insofar as it goes, but it implies that CO2 is the big greenhouse issue with cows, which is not the case. Methane is the issue. The cow converts some of the carbon to methane which is a much more powerful (short term) greenhouse gas than CO2. The meme is correct, though, that the cow does not introduce any new CO2 into the atmosphere.

quote:

---

Then why is all the big money chasing carbon capture and not methane capture?

---

They are chasing both. I don’t expect you to know because you probably are not in the oil and gas industry, but methane capture is being heavily emphasized.

Methane degrades very quickly, so sequestering methane that is already in the atmosphere is not necessary. All they have to do is eliminate the emissions and shortly after there would be very little methane forcing.

quote:

---

They are chasing both

---

You said carbon is not the issue.

Based on that they should drop it and put all resources into dealing with methane.

quote:

---

A company never decided carbon capture was a good idea until the government started taking all this money and shoving it towards them. Its a LIE PERIOD

---

Yeah, no shite. I’ve never heard of a company thinking that exporting gold bullion to the moon was a good idea and for the same reason - there are costs associated with it but no revenue.

The government has decided that excessive CO2 in the atmosphere is bad. They have given tax credits for those who will lower the CO2 level. THAT is the revenue that makes the value proposition work.

You can argue that the government misunderstands the threat of too much CO2, but your argument about businesses not doing sequestration before the government offered tax breaks is a foolish argument.

But she is so nice. And she goes to church with people in Monroe (where I live). That is almost a quote from somebody with one of those last names with lots of money in Monroe.

I was supporting the guy from Alexandria.