▶ Your Answer :
In the reading passage, there is ample support for the author’s claim that there are some ways to carry out carbon sequestration to hold CO2 in the ground and oceans. However, the professor in the lecture gives several reasons as rebuttal to the author’s point.
First, the professor contends that putting iron into the oceans is not persistent way to keep CO2. It is because when phytoplankton produce rapidly due to additional supply of iron, they ended up consuming all of nitrogen, which results in decrease the population back. Moreover, the study shows that through this way, only 3% of CO2 could be absorbed. It indicate that it is not that effective. This casts doubt on the reading passage’s sugge1stion that by helping phytoplankton propagate, a large amount of CO2 could be stored in them1 with the fact that the plankton need CO2when they photosynthesize.
Second, the professor argues that it is true for wetlands to contain CO2 a lot, but artificial wetlands are not effective since it takes such a long time to make them and they are less capable than natural ones. This refutes the reading passage’s assertion that building more artificial wetlands is the way to retain CO2.
Finally, the professor insist that it is not plausible that using old coal mines is a good way to maintain CO2 in them. The professor says that methane is released when CO2 bonds with deserted coalmines and methane serves as fuel. The bottom line is that they emit CO2 again 1when they burn. In short, the total amount of CO2 doesn’t change. This counters the reading passage’s idea that CO2 is captured to the surface of old coalmines. |