Cool. Now we just need to make a direct current power supply for the interstate system so that logistics don't have to stop and recharge.

Actually, no. The banning of CFC's is a great example. CFC's were destroying the ozone layer. Nations agreed internationally to ban their production and use. Those bans were enforced and now the ozone layer is regenerating.

Developed nations need to help developing nations to adopt non-mined carbon fuel sources with grants and interest free loans. Them having the technology is more important than making them 'pay' for it.

Sure, but that is a local problem. Climate is global, and hits EVERY locality, and so it takes priority.

Nope. We have to stop burning mined hydrocarbons for energy. That is our number one priority period. No sequestration, unless it's part of a plan for eventual elimination. Pipelines leak, wells are improperly sealed, and it hasn't been demonstrated that the CO2 can't leak. In addition, as I have said before, at high temperatures, Rubisco breaks down. That means photosynthesis stops of c3 plants.

EVERYTHING that isn't getting off mined hydrocarbons for energy is a distraction. Planting trees. Whinging about agriculture. Sequestration. ALL of it. It's all a distraction from relentlessly replacing as much of our energy with non-mined hydrocarbon sources. That may mean hydrogen fueled aircraft and cargo ships, and electrifying the land based transportation grid. And yeah, it SUCKS when your native land gets a solar farm dropped down on it or you have windmills in your formerly picturesque ranch view. Know what sucks more? Burning alive in forest fires.

Once again, once you've achieved not burning mined hydrocarbons for power, plant all the damned trees you want. I'll lend you a shovel. But that is step two. It will never fix the problem, only delay it.

And all that is pointless so long as the amount of CO2 goes up. Eventually the heat is high enough that RUBISCO breaks down and plants are unable to photosynthize. Trees are great for many of the reasons you list. They are NOT a solution for climate change.

End burning mined hydrocarbons for energy and then plant as many trees as you want.

I anticipate mostly peaceful co-existence with bouts of horrifying violence. Basically, building stuff in space is expensive, fragile, and easy to destroy. Best way to avoid it is with a full implication of MAD. You don't smash my stuff with relativist rocks, I don't smash your stuff with nukes. Everyone lives and makes money.

Buuuuuut there are going to be political groups and potentially national entities that will constantly feel entitlement to violate this understanding. I suspect conflict will be more competitive than all out war. After all, blow shit up on earth and there's still land and atmosphere. Blow it up in space and there's nothing but wreckage.

You don't get it. I never said trees are bad, fuck the trees. They have a lot of benefits. They are, however, not going to do anything to address climate change. Especially step one. So long as we're burning mined hydrocarbons for energy, the problem is getting worse, not better.

I'm all for trees... once we're not burning mined hydrocarbons.

Correct. There's 4 reservoirs of carbon: the lithosphere (rock), the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, and the biosphere. The lithosphere holds 99.99% of earth's carbon, in the form of carboniferous minerals, including oil and natural gas. When volcanoes erupt or we dig those minerals up and burn them, the carbon is transferred to the atmosphere. Eventually, life and water move carbon out of the atmosphere and eventually transfer it back to the lithosphere. This process is very, very slow.

We are able to dig up and burn hydrocarbons faster than nature can remove them from the atmosphere. So long as there's photosynthesis and liquid water, eventually carbon gets scrubbed out of the atmosphere. We'd be looking at a cooler Venus style planet otherwise.

If we cut off burning mined hydrocarbons today, natural processes would slowly remove them from the atmosphere. However, that would be counteracted by carbon stored in the ocean to be released. This is why I think it would be better to remove carbonic acid in the oceans and let them absorb carbon from the atmosphere than to try and suck it out of the atmosphere.

This is idiotic for fighting climate change.

1. the problem is caused by the combustion of mined hydrocarbons for energy. That is the problem right there. As long as we combust hydrocarbons for energy, the problem is getting worse. Until that is reduced to zero we are making the problem worse.

2. trees are wonderful things. They are also bad for removing carbon from the atmosphere. Here's why: the oceans are in equilibrium with the atmosphere. When carbon is removed by trees, the oceans off gas more CO2. Trees take time to grow. Now, theoretically, if you collected leaves and put them in a mine or some other anerobic environment where they wouldn't rot, that would remove carbon, but it would be horribly inefficient. Otherwise, when that tree dies and rots between 50 and 100% of that carbon will go back to the atmosphere.

3. if you want to seriously reduce carbon, reduce it in the oceans. Again, equilibrium is a thing. reduce it in the oceans and billions of square miles of ocean become your carbon scrubber. That means supporting phytoplanton and sea grass at best, but honestly, industrial processes got us here and industrial processes are going to be needed to get this done quickly. Turn gypsum into quicklime and dump gigatons of it into the deadest parts of the ocean. The CaO bonds with carbonic ions and forms calcium carbonate.

Again: Step one is ending the combustion of mined hydrocarbons. That is step one. Do not pass GO do not collect 200 dollars this is your problem deal with it. Once step one is addressed, THEN we can make things better.