re: #98 austin_blue

Sorry for not responding earlier, there was a bigot that needed to get the stick.

Now as far as your post, it seems perfectly reasonable, doesn’t it? I mean, what’s the point of changing the way we produce energy? Well, here are the facts from the past 800,000 years:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

You will notice that under natural cycles, the CO2 levels have maxed out at around 300 ppm around 330,000 years ago.

We are now galloping toward 400 ppm, with no end in the increase in sight.

It’s not a matter of sequestration, it’s a matter of fundamentally changing the way we produce electricity on this planet.

That’s right. That’s a difficult political task and will take a long time - it’s already taken a long time. It’s not the skeptics, really, it’s the interest every human being has in cheap energy. Even people who accept the science don’t act accordingly. Congress and their constituents are used to kicking the can down the road. And then there’s China and India.

I think in the short term the damage is done. I also think a workable atmospheric carbon removal technology will probably come along, maybe in 1 to 2 centuries. That’s just a guess. By then, we should be off carbon- releasing energy sources. The extra CO2 will be in the atmosphere until then. We should plan for a warmer earth until then and spend some capital to adapt wherever necessary.