🚀 go-pugleaf

What's so terribly difficult about it?
  The smoke from coal-fired power stations, for example, consists of: dust, 
steam, heat, and CO2, of which only the CO2 is the tricky bit - and even 
that has potential, using photosynthesis via plants or chlorophyll solution.
   Al Gore, in his second book, deals with heat re "cogneration" 
(CHP=combined heat and power) on page 253.
   Steam is a matter of condensation; while dust particles can be filtered 
out, or allowed to settle.
   Most components of smoke can be removed, purely by physical means, let 
alone chemical, so only some CO2 remains.
   Meantime, the federal govt is about to put "a price on carbon", which is 
merely a way of making it dearer to emit; not ban, or recycle.
   Most societies no longer allow raw sewage to flow down public gutters 
into the rivers and sea, so why not take a similar attitude to chimneys 
shitting into the atmosphere?  Not so much different, surely?
   Of course, ANY action involves cost, but the price of inaction, in the 
form of erratic and extreme weather, might prove more costly.
    An article in "The Age"(16/12), "Railing at a Mexican standoff" proposes 
that there be an on-going UN Climate Council, with, say, 15 significant 
members - US, EU, Japan, Russia, Germany, Britain, France, Poland, China, 
India, Brazil, South Africa, plus three others (victims of climate change).
   This is a step in the right direction, as agreement among 15 is easier 
than 194, as at Cancun.
    However, recycling smoke should be the main aim, with power stations the 
chief target.