Comments by "Jack Haveman" (@JackHaveman52) on "CNBC" channel.

Environmentalists: We have 12 years to live. Techies: I have a machine that can add years to your life. Environmentalists: NOOOO.
27
@Muneeb Iqbal That cost is for the prototype. Prototypes are always way more expensive than those built in an production environment. Also, these machines would ADD to what trees are doing, not take away from it. Trees have other uses than just as nature's filters. They have economic and environment value as well so it's still in our best interests to support tree growth. These machines take up very little space in comparison to the 40 million trees needed for just one of them. It would seem the most prudent plan would be to use BOTH of these methods in cutting carbon in the atmosphere. Eventually we're going to exhaust raw carbon fuels and we're going to need the cheap carbon fuels of today to help finance the new energies needed in the future.
8
@joethestrat NO. The carbon isn't the energy. Carbon is a side product of the production of energy through the burning of coal. This process takes this side product, namely carbon, and instead of releasing it into the atmosphere, separates it and allows it to be stored back where it was found.....in the ground. It does use some of the energy produced to separate the carbon to be buried but there's still lots left over to be used by the general public.
7
@joethestrat I agree with the nuclear option but we're not going to rid ourselves of carbon based energy overnight. What these carbon cleaning machines are doing is allowing us to use the cheap carbons to finance the transition away from carbons. Carbon use is finite, anyway. Eventually, there won't be enough carbon fuel to run our economy so it will come to an end. Maybe it would be smarter to use carbon energy to grow alternative energy so we've already in transition when oil and coal starts to run out.
5