Columbia U physicists working on CO2 super-scrubber, greens outraged
This just in from the Heartland Institute.

Scientists at Columbia University are developing a carbon dioxide (CO2) scrubber device that removes one ton of CO2 from the air every day.

While some see the scrubber as an efficient and economical way to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide, many environmentalists are opposing the technology because it allows people to use fossil fuels and emit carbon in the first place.

At first I thought the Columbia physicists were simply moonbats of a slightly higher grade, but these guys seem legit.

"Now, I don't know about whether this technology will solve global warming," said Burnett, "but let's say it is cost-effective, and let's assume for the sake of argument that global warming is a real, serious problem that needs to be solved. Then I would argue that this technology may be a good thing."
...
Leading energy analysts agreed with the scientists, rather than the protesters.

"If CO2 emission reduction is a goal, then investigating and investing in strategies for capitalizing on our existing infrastructure efficiently and effectively makes more sense than throwing away reasonable options simply because they don't align with a political philosophy about our energy economy," said Amy Kaleita, an environmental policy fellow at the Pacific Research Institute.

Note that they're not ceding the premise that CO2 contributes to global warming. They're simply creating a way to entirely separate the question of CO2 buildup with the question of fossil fuel consumption. This allows ongoing legislation efforts to work on questions of economic policy (f.e. the price of gasoline) separately from questions of environmental policy (emission control, pollution taxation, etc.). This research is a classic example of how to unravel a Gordian knot. In short, these scientists are trying to make everybody's lives a helluva lot simpler, easier, and better.

Of course, not everybody wants this Gordian knot to be broken.

Environmental activist groups such as Greenpeace have consistently opposed similar technologies, such as carbon capture and sequestration, because they do not address what they see as the root of the problem.

On May 5, for example, the activist groups Students Promoting Environmental Action and Save Our Cumberland Mountains demonstrated in Knoxville, Tennessee against carbon sequestration. Repeatedly citing a Greenpeace position paper, they argued eliminating the use of coal, not reducing atmospheric CO2, should be society's primary goal.

So, the Greenies are upset because it won't stop people from burning fossil fuels - it'll merely take away all allegedly negative ramifications of doing so. 'Cuz when you base your entire sense of self around throwing a righteous snit that purportedly demonstrates your moral superiority, nothing's worse than some clever engineer coming along and knocking the wind out of your sails by obsolescing the premise of your anger.

But hey, maybe they have legitimate arguments. Let's hear them out. What do they bring to the intellectual table? This:

"Our position is we need to start phasing out coal as soon as possible," said Cathie Bird of Save Our Cumberland Mountains.

"Carbon capture and storage does not make coal clean," read a banner hoisted by protesters.

Actually, yes, it does. That's exactly what it does. And besides, modern-day coal-burning facilities are insanely clean in the first place - coal power plants today are not only far more energy-efficient than oil, but they have far better mechanisms for reclaiming secondary pollutants like sulfur dioxide.

Evidently these Greenies can't produce a valid intellectual point - possibly due to the relative locations of their brains to their colons. Of course, I make the assumption that they are actually interested in making points, rather than protesting just because it's fun to be angry about stuff with all your friends and make a big scene and maybe pick up some hippie chicks while you're at it. Perhaps I give them too much credit.