Discover more from Douglass’s Newsletter
To simplify, hopefully accurately: do we have a consensus (after a few minutes thought) that even if all co2 production stopped now, the amount of co2 in the atmosphere would keep the temperature rising.
Therefore the major effort needs to be on sequestration* (or some other way . Is there even one?) Sequestering is essential and should be, along with helping people cope, our major focus.
The only feasible path is sequestering is hrough plants - mostly trees but also new forms of agriculture. (mechanical sequestering seems just too impossible. The amount of co2 currently in the atmosphere is approximately equal to the weight of all the vehicles in the world. Billions of tons. If a market developed for co2, the logic opens up)
With reducing co2 currently in the air we have a chance (there are many other serious problems we must also handle: war, oceans, soil, plagues, some kind of meaningful equality). If we can't to do that sequestering soon we all die, how much sooner than we were planning on unclear, but sooner.
*sequester (v.)
late 14c., sequestren, transitive, "remove (something), set aside; quarantine, isolate (someone); excommunicate;" also intransitive, "separate oneself from," from Old French sequestrer (14c.) and directly from Late Latin sequestrare "to place in safekeeping," from Latin sequester "trustee, mediator," noun use of an adjective meaning "intermediate," which probably is related to sequi "to follow" (from PIE root *sekw- (1) "to follow").
The legal meaning "seize by authority, confiscate" is attested from 1510s. The alternative verb sequestrate is early 15c. (Chauliac), from the Latin past participle sequestratus. Related: Sequestered; sequestering.