which horse to ride? Cut CO2 or maintain tech innovation?
# 4066
If we stopped all or even most CO2 production we would still have the problem of the then-existing CO2 in the atmosphere (and oceans). This CO2 still traps heat, even if there is no additional CO2. To not cut the residual CO2. perhaps 1/2 of the then-existing 430 parts per million. would be to give up on cutting increasingly high temperatures. Taking one-half the residual co2, \ out will require a lot of technology, removing and sequestering one-half of the 4 % of the total atmosphere. The total mass of Earth’s atmosphere is about 5.5 quadrillion tons, or roughly one-millionth of Earth’s mass. The sequestered CO@ would then weigh 10 to the fifteenth quadrillion tons times five for the total atmosphere and 2% of that for the amount that must be sequestered.
So we must cut CO2 and yet we must maintain high tech innovation to develop and produce the sequestering tech. Is there any escape from this logical dilemma? Not yet.
A couple of decades ago, a friend in GA who was a professional botanist at the University of Georgia ran a few calculations concluding that reforesting much of the temperate zone would not deter global warming. Nonetheless, he pressed on continuing to renovate his 5-10-acre plot, eradicating stilt grass and other invasives, while teaching full-course load.