The management of this issue relates more to world agriculture and industry than anything else. Threfore to mitigate this problem, one idea could be to capture atmospheric carbon and store it under the roads. Secondly, promote perennial horticulture at policy levels as this not only acts as carbon sink but also provides more employment among small land holders.

With new legislation and regulatory constraints just down the road (not to mention the pending threats that climate change pose on society), companies will have to rapidly find new ways to change their materials, products, processes and business activities in order to participate in the rescue of our planet.

Knowing that most companies do not possess the competencies, tools, and methods necessary to offer immediate solutions, open innovation will have to become a commonplace strategy and practice across all industries. With new, sustainability-focused solution providers emerging every day, corporations will have to engage with the global open innovation community to find solutions if they want to solve their problems more quickly, and bring their new products to market earlier to meet the rising demands of our new, eco-conscious society.

I think your readers would find it useful to see a marginal cost comparison for a tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent for carbon capture and storage versus other carbon sequestration options. My sources in the oil industry have mentioned costs anywhere from $70 to $120 per tonne. That does not look attractive given the current prices on the Chicago Climate Exchange or EU Emission Trading Scheme.

It might be time to find less expensive solutions; they do exist.

I was very excited to read about the opportunities you’ve found from carbon sequestration, but I’m appalled by the result. Storage is not an opportunity. It’s not even a good idea.

What you’re doing is sweeping the problem under the rug for someone else to find. What we need is a process for either using the sequestered CO2 or for breaking it down into usable parts. The most obvious option to me would be some sort of tree farm (or another organic process that consumes CO2 and produces O2) in a contained greenhouse, into which the sequestered CO2 could be fed. Separating the CO2 from the air is only the first step in a more elaborate—but necessary—process.

It seems wasteful to sequester carbon, one of the building blocks of this planet. Why don’t we focus our energies on using carbon dioxide for productive purposes?

Pure carbon dioxide can be:

—Used as a core component in the manufacture of synthetic fuels through hydrogenation, setting up a value-added, regenerative cycle.

—Mixed with certain geochemical compounds, and used to produce extruded and cast-building components of great utility.

—Used as a non-polluting replacement for refrigerant gasses in closed compression and decompression systems.

The list goes on, limited only by our imaginations.

Surely we can do better than dump such a valuable resource while consuming other valuable resources in the process.

BYU has licensed technology to a start up company located in Provo, Utah that will cleanly separate CO2 from the flue gases and store energy for peak power generation. Coupled with this, we have also licensed them an elegant carbon storage solution.