>>13357536>>13357627#7 Crack CO2 and use the carbon to produce oil, resulting in a closed carbon loop that no longer adds carbon to the atmosphere. Would require a great deal of input solar and/or nuclear energy. Or potentially a biofuel solution, but it would have to be something we genetically engineer because biofuel attempts to date don't work out.
>>13357536>STOP FUCKING BURNING COAL AND OIL YOU STUPID FUCKING APESIf the entire globe honestly dedicated itself to this it would take a good 60 years to replace coal with nuclear for electricity, ICE cars with EVs for transportation, and build excess nuclear capacity to charge the cars. And yes, it does have to be nuclear. Solar/wind can help a little, they cannot carry the load. And that would take care of a little more than 2/3rds of the "problem", shifting the warming curve but not eliminating it.
All of this is fine if you really believe GCM projections AND believe that level of warming will lead to disaster. But first you have to get politicians on board, including politicians in China. They will tell you how committed they are to fighting climate change, then propose new taxes and "programs" which accomplish nothing but greater transfer of wealth from the lower/middle classes to the wealthy elite.
OTOH, the GCM projections have been way too high versus observation for two decades now. AGW theory relies on a positive water vapor feedback, otherwise CO2 forcing is capped at +1.2C due to IR band saturation. (Note: this is acknowledged by the IPCC.) It looks like there is only a very weak atmospheric H2O feedback. So we're probably looking at 1.5-2C of total anthropogenic warming, of which roughly 0.7C has already occurred. (Not all of the 1C of warming observed is anthropogenic, also acknowledged by the IPCC.) That's not a disaster. I would argue it would actually be beneficial on the whole.
cont.
