I’ve always thought it’d be useful to pursue just as a backstop: you set a carbon tax to whatever the cost of sucking the co2 back out is, and then you have net zero.
I guess it’d have to be introduced slowly to 1. Give them time to develop lower costs before bankrupting literally everyone and 2. Reduce the shock of painfully high carbon tax, and give everyone time to jump for cheaper alternatives. But it feels like the closest to a proper solution that I can imagine.
hey, kill the planet more because it's too expensive not too. Sound logic....
What are we trying to cheap out here m
Yeah but venture capitalists can't make money off of it if they don't! Think of the share holders!
So it's a way?
It's like addressing a wound by mopping up all the blood and injecting it back into your body. Good luck.
And, besides everything mentioned, it would create several mountains and hills (from all that solid state carbon).
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.