In
the given set of materials there is some discrepancy between the view of the
professor and the author over the issue of reducing CO2. The professor raises
objections to the alleged methods of alleviating the amount of CO2 presented in
the passage.
To
start with, the professor debunks the author's first conjecture that using
phytoplanktons to decline CO2 levels is will not actually work at all. Even if
phytoplanktons multiply quickly, they need to a huge amount of nitrogen, thus
they populations are going to decrease again. Furthermore, a recent study found
that it is impossible to put a large amount of iron into the ocean. This cast
doubt on the author's claim that microscopic marine organisms might help reduce
CO2 level in the ocean.
In
addition, the professor dissents over the author's point on artificial wetlands
are an inefficient method since it takes too long time to be useful. Artificial
wetland takes more a hundred year to make, thus it is too late. Besides,
artificial wetlands function 20% less than natural wetlands. However, this
counters the author's assertion that making artificial wetlands is a great way
to lesson CO2.
Finally,
the professor goes on to expound to the author's last idea on using coal mines
is problematic. The professor mentions a methane gas to corroborate this
argument. For example, a methane, distracted by fuel, contains CO2 too and it
disseminates into atmosphere. Accordingly, total amount of CO2 might not be
reduced at all. However, the author insists that coal mines can play a role in
warehouse of CO2. Therefore, with these three convincing explanations the
professor posits, the author's assumptions are all rendered invalid.