Re: Climate Remediation Engineering - Size of Problem

On 7/05/2025 2:47 am, john larkin wrote:

On Mon, 5 May 2025 20:06:25 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
wrote:
 

On 5/4/2025 8:48 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote:

For some time, I've been following the debate on Climate Change and
the back and forth on the practicality of removing enough carbon
dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, soon enough to matter.

>
What constitutes "soon enough to matter"?  To who?  What?
>
It took a long time to dig this hole, why would you think
it would be easy/quick/inexpensive to FILL it?
>
We somehow managed to live with a ban on CFCs (ozone hole).  And,
emission controls on automobiles (smog, acid rain, etc.)
>
One just has to decide there is value in "fixing" these (man-made)
problems.
>
Heed Genesis 2:15, christians!
>

 There are still a billion dirt-poor people in the world, without
electricity and food insecure. They need energy, transport, and food,
all generating or using CO2.

It's easier to give a peasant a bunch of solar panels and a battery to let them generate energy on site than it is provide a diesel-powered generator and a steady supply of diesel fuel. It's a lot easier than setting up a nation-wide electrical grid.
They won't eat much more than they used to, and an e-bike doesn't generate any CO2.

Long-term, prosperous people reduce their birth rates. I expect that
in a few hundred years Earth will have maybe 2 billion healthy,
literate, peaceful people and CO2 will be around 600 PPM, ideal for
trees and crops.

Those that survive the tropical cyclones, the sea-levels rises and the more dramatic wild-fires.
The six billion odd deaths may not all be peaceful and in bed.
The world we evolved in fluctuated between CO2 levels of 180ppm (where we didn't do all that well) and 270ppm (when our population went up a lot). 600ppm may be rather more than our genome can cope with.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney