John Barry on carbon dioxide capture and storage
Photo: NASA/JSC
“I think we can take it that the scientific consensus is that there is a problem, and action is needed as quickly as possible.” – John Barry
In this EarthSky Clear Voices for Science podcast, John Barry of Shell talks about the problem of global warming and CO2 – or carbon dioxide- emissions.
Barry leads Shell’s efforts to manage CO2 through a technology called carbon dioxide capture and storage. He spoke with EarthSky’s Jorge Salazar about the technology.
This podcast was made possible in part by Shell – encouraging dialog on the energy challenge.
Since all life on Earth is Carbon based, not a thing was said if this would impact the carbon cycle. If I was to take a guess, I would say that it would impact the carbon cycle since a finate amount of carbon is no longer can be used in the carbon cycle.
A P Garcia,
Right now C02 levels are approximately 40% higher than pre-industrial levels. Prior to man’s contribution to green house gasses, the normal range of atmospheric CO2 was between approximately 180 and 290 parts per million (ppm). Present levels are close to 400 ppm. So reducing atmospheric CO2 back to their normal levels will not short-change the carbon cycle.
Here is another way to look at it… The fossil fuels that we use today came from underground. Since we’ve been pumping (and digging) it up and pushing it into our atmosphere and creating a surplus above ground, it stands to reason that if we had practical means to capture the surplus and put it back underground, the balance will be restored back to earth’s normal levels. Everyone will be happy, including the carbon cycle.
Dear Deborah and Jorge,
First a word of thanks, I love your program and website. Tonight’s Sky brings empowering knowledge to my stargazing children. I must say I was severely disappointed to see what appears to be E&S’s foot in the door of corporate sellout. In your recent article, Shell exec speaks on carbon dioxide capture and storage, where John Barry explains the concept of CCS, there are two points that stood out reflecting my point.
1. “We know that the C02 concentration in the atmosphere has gone up measurably in recent years. We also know that it’s not what’s happened so far that is the problem.”
2. “That’s John Barry with Shell. He leads one of Shell’s efforts to manage carbon dioxide emissions – thought to be changing Earth’s climate.”
These statements are in direct contradiction to loads of respected science exhibiting direct links to climate change resulting from greenhouse gas emission dating back to the industrial revolution, including Program #4230 of the Earth & Sky Radio Series, Greenhouse Effect. It appears E&S is giving Shell a soapbox to say that all of the carbon emission damages to the environment are not really the problem. Not to mention the fact that Shell’s plan seems to be not to produce less CO2 but devise a better way to pass the buck to the planet in a different fashion. This can only be viewed as an insulting attempt to shine a much muddied past. Shell is responsible for numerous environmental devastation not to mention Shell’s involvement with the murder of Ken Saro-Wiwa. I encourage everyone to dig into the “Managing our social impacts” section of the Shell website www.shell.com to truly get a feel for the minimal price shell puts on human life and their environmental sacrifices in the name of profit. No one should fall for their band aid on the gunshot wound attempt. You have a responsibility to be unbiased in your science and not kowtow to corporate oil, or corporate anyone for that matter.
Thank you for your time.
Skopas M.
Dear Skopas,
Thank you for your note. I understand your concern. I believe, though, that you’ve mis-read or mis-heard John Barry in this podcast. He’s agreeing with you that carbon emissions are causing Earth to warm. EarthSky has interviewed several executives and scientists at Shell, and they all have been open about human-caused global warming.
EarthSky would never sacrifice its integrity for any reason. If you have trusted us in the past … you can continue to trust us. Perhaps we won’t always agree – but you can trust us to do what we believe is right. We believe the scientists and execs at Shell with whom we’ve spoken have been extremely forthright and honest in their concern for carbon emissions leading to global warming.
I hope you will respond, so we can continue to discuss this important issue.
Many thanks for your note,
Deborah