Reader Question: Carbon Capture?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Here’s the latest reader question, along with my reply! 

Gregg asks: There is a psychological problem with the current way we battle the climate change scam.  We present a truck full of evidence that the numbers don’t add up, that the predictions have been wrong and we get Homer Simpson types who say “maybe the Earth is warming, we can’t be sure.”  I propose an end around: carbon capture.  Of course, it is not needed and is terribly pricey, but it is cheaper and much less obnoxious than existing and future regulations.  These regulations encompass all human activity since human activity takes energy.  Carbon capture costs about $50 a ton and roughly $2 trillion for the whole planet at current levels of technology. Since Washington has shipped most of the dirty manufacturing overseas the cost for the United States may be far less. Improved technology may even reduce the cost further, but the beauty of carbon capture is there is no technical argument against it. The argument may even make crude oil a good thing again. Don’t expect big oil as an ally on this though. The scarcity of oil, caused by war or regulation, is the mother of oil profit.

My reply: Carbon capture has been proposed, actually – but  (leaving aside the cost) it will never be implemented because the goal is not carbon reduction. That is merely the excuse for the economic strangulation of the masses and the increased control of the government-corporate nexus over the masses.

Once you understand this, everything makes sense.

Just as Face Diapering and Sickness Kabuki are not about “stopping the spread” but rather increasing the spread . . . of control by the government-corporate nexus.

Consider the EV thing as a for-instance. If the object of this exercise were truly to reduce CO2 output then why are almost all EVs extant designed to deliver performance that at least doubles if not triples the amount of energy they consume and thus massively increases the amount of C02 generated to produce it? The fact is that the preponderance of electricity generated in this country is not generated by wind farms and solar arrays but by C02 emitting utilities.  And EVs like the Tesla are the electric equivalent of a V8 SUV in terms of the power they suck down.

This is cheered – subsidized and promoted.

Meanwhile, small and extremely efficient hybrids are now the ugly ducklings of the new car marketplace, notwithstanding that they place almost no burden on the grid and consume very little energy (and use very little gas) and so produce essentially nil of any harmful emissions – while also being practical and affordable, unlike all the EVs extant.

See what I mean?

. . . .

Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos. 

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! 

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)

My eBook about car buying (new and used) is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here.  If that fails, email me at and I will send you a copy directly!


  1. This is one of the reasons why ICE cars will be discontinued just because.

    Most of the 2020 Chevy Bolts haven’t been sold yet. Nobody is buying them willingly. 70% of the Chevy Bolt inventory in dealer lots are LAST YEARS model (meaning some have probably sat for TWO years already).

    This in spite of a 26% sales increase over 2019 models……

    If this was a car vs being a virtue signaling device it would be discontinued. The discontinued Dodge Dart in 2015 sold 87,392 copies. GM sold 20,754 Bolts in 2020 and it’s not discontinued.

    • I’ll take a 2020 Bolt… For $5,000. Take it or leave it.

      100,000 miles/30 miles/gallon = 3,333.33 gallons
      3,333.33 gallons x $2.25/gallon = $7,500
      Should it last for 100,000 miles, it will pay for itself and save me ~$1,500 in fuel, if I buy $1,000 in solar panels and charging equipment. Might take a couple days to fully charge if I run it dry, but that’s alright. I’m not driving a great deal these days, anyway. 😉

  2. Sure.

    Plant trees.

    Also, as I continuously advocate, we can make fuel from waste biomass through a (solar/wind/thermal/hydroelectric powered) Fischer-Tropsch process and others, and continue to use our gas and diesel driven vehicles ad infinitum. Given the ingenuity, I believe it can be cost-competitive with oil distillation. The fuel will then be “carbon neutral”, and this should shut up the “greenies”, and in fact, given no ulterior motives, they should LOVE it.
    Strategies wherein CO2 is captured and combined with hydrogen to yield fuel are also being developed, and I believe they could also be successful.
    Also, ammonia (NH4) could be made though using “renewable” energy, and a supplemented with a little synthetic hydrocarbon fuel, and this would also be “carbon-neutral”. This NH4 can be burned in any internal combustion engine with the appropriate alterations.
    Just a couple of many ideas, though you’re right Eric. I think it’s mostly about control.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here