There's nothing wrong with using graphene in industrial applications. In fact, its a great idea. What's wrong is implying that it is even a partial solution to our ongoing atmospheric crisis. By placing those articles in a discussion of CO2 pollution the implied meaning is that this is not so bad because we can turn it into a positive thing. Its like saying: "We should all go out and buy a Chia pet because all those little sprouting seeds will remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere." The statement may be technically correct, but its invocation as a solution to an overwhelming global crisis is misleading and distracting. The intended response is "See, this global warming thing is no big deal. All we need to do is buy a Chia Pet."

I'm not saying YOU are pushing a conspiracy theory, but I have no doubt that the sudden appearance in the popular press of all these "solutions" to CO2 pollution are part of a deliberate campaign to defuse public concern about the issue. They are trying to plant the narrative that we do not need to overturn our lives and businesses to solve this climate thing.

I've seen this dodge before. Many years ago, a company that used irradiation from radioactive isotopes to preserve food and extend shelf life was trying to secure permits to do this in my state. They argued that no radioactivity would get into the food. (Which is true, exposing anything to radiation does not make it radioactive). I got involved in a (successful) campaign to stop it.

They implied that the isotopes they used were nuclear plant radioactive wastes that were a hazard even in storage. This was a good way to employ them in a worthy cause. They also remarked that these isotopes were already used for medical and industrial applications anyway and there was adequate regulation and control of them already.

What they didn't mention was that the amounts of radioisotopes for food preservation would imply enormous quantities of the stuff circulating to farms and food processing plants, where they would be handled by seasonal farm laborers-NOT highly trained technicians. Where and how they would be stored, transported, used and disposed of when spent was not even mentioned. Who would keep track of this stuff and ensure it was properly managed. We're talking massive government bureaucracy here, because experience has shown us the private sector does not like to clean up after itself. It would also require a massive distribution system to circulate these items to farms and packing houses. Although the implication in their copy was that these substances could be removed from nuclear waste (thereby mitigating THAT problem) the truth is that reactor fuel waste is so dangerous to handle that no one is extracting radio isotopes from it. Industrial and medical radioactives are produced in specialized nuclear reactors (that's right, MORE nukes, not less).

In short, food irradiation itself was perfectly safe (no one was arguing it wasn't) but the infrastructure needed to implement it on an industrial scale was vast and unmanageable. I used to work in that industry. I wrote propaganda copy like that. I can recognize a corporate "public information" scam when I see it.

THIRTY SEVEN BILLION TONS EVERY YEAR.