If technology exists to clean the sky of impurities should it be built regardless of financial cost?
I recently watched a show that stated we have the knowledge to build technology to clean our air and extract dangerous gases like methane and co2 that cause global warming. But it stated it was too expensive to build so it wasn't being considered.
Ah yes that would make sense because it is expensive, more like they couldn’t agree how to tax it or monetize it, what a shame to see such possible technology sitting on the back burner. Reminds me of all the possible free energy technology known, it can be done but if they can’t make money from it you won’t ever see it….
Your question makes it simple to ask when using the parameters given. "Regardless of cost" is the part I will address.
If it is too expensive to build it must stand to reason the benefits of production won't be recovered and so the impact makes it too inefficient. Like trying to heat a football stadium with an open flame. I believe many things are possible but not necessarily feasible.
We have a very effective and Earth conscious way of cleaning the air that has been around forever that also id not being used as it should be. Plant and raises TREES ! Quit burning the rain forests and halt production of pollutants that are exhausted into the air causing all the problem. That isn't gonna happen either though.
So long as corporations are a for profit entity there will rarely be an emphasis on what is proper over profit.
Yes, it should be built. But it is imaginary. It is easy to say but difficult or not at all possible to do so. If it is so the mystery of Universe, the sky, the land and the sea would have been solved for ever. And men would be the immortal creatures of the Universe.
Things aren't always what they seem on the surface. For example, we have for years heard of the dangers of mole spores in buildings and homes yet no one has accurately assigned levels to them which provide an accurate definition of what is dangerous and what is not. Personally, I have seen tenants in real estate developments threaten to sue landlords over the quality of the air within their rented space while they complained or potential mold, etc. When air sample testing was completed, the air inside the spaces was actually cleaner than the air outside. You may take that result and use it to support the claim that industry is polluting the world but I believe the atmosphere is far to vast, dynamic, and resilient to cave to some pollutants created by mankind. We have to be careful? Yes, but let's not be too quick to leap when it comes to the content of our air and the source of that content. WB
Cost is always a key consideration, in fact it over rides safety in all companies. Think about it, if a company isn't profitable it ceases to exist, but companies can accept a certain amount of financial loss due to accidents or fatalities. Don't believe any company that proclaims safety before productivity, that's BS! Too expensive means not in the budget!
I think, Terraforming the Moon, seems a more practicable idea.
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.