Second component--Restore old growth forests to absorb carbon from the atmosphere. Plant jatropha and agave in regions with poorer quality soil or unsuitable climates--the sugars and oils these produce can also be used as biofuels, making them at least carbon-neutral.
Third component--restore the culture of public transportation in heavy polluters such as the US, China and India. Rebuild the aging rail lines, place a network of high-speed rail fueled by hydrogen or biodiesel throughout the country, and make sure any new developments adhere to smart-growth principles (easy access to subways, mixed-use medium- or high-density development with walkable streets, etc.) to reduce dependence on automobiles in the first place.
These steps will reduce our carbon output to near-zero and may even begin decreasing it within our lifetimes. As an emergency measure, we can consider carbon sequestration to reduce atmospheric CO2 over the short term, but that's a whole different can of worms.
I can't think of a plan that would actually be implemented, so realistically I think we should focus on a plan that would slow the rate of growth of carbon emissions, in the short term. Putting a tax on carbon that makes it pay for the environmental and health damages that it does would put other energy technologies on a more level playing field and would certainly lead to a faster development of non-carbon energy sources. The proceeds from the carbon tax could be used to develop sustainable energy, defray the fuel costs for essential industries such as agriculture, help lower income people pay their fuel bills, and pay down the national debt.
I would provide research grants for researchers working on artificial photosynthesis. The benign route is inorganic.
http://www.uml.edu/News/stories/2011-12/...
Plants harvest only about 3% of the available solar energy at best. How about a genetic engineering program aimed at doubling the photosynthetic efficiency? In practical terms, this would mean adding more pigments and connecting them to the electron transport chain. The fraction of the earths carbon in biomass would double as a consequence. Of course, plants would change color and that alone would probably destroy ecosystems (pollinating insects would no longer recognize their hosts for starters) , but the CO2 problem would be solved.
Edit: Some plants such as algae will grow as much as conditions permit. These will store more carbon (or transfer the carbon to other trophic levels. Others grow to a fixed size. All are subject to resource limitations.
There are two questions in here. Given how many questions you ask (tons), you really should unpack them and post each separately.
Also: Frame them as: How COULD WE: not "How would you"
(No individual alone can possibly have a more than negligible effect)
1. How could we reduce EMISSIONS of CO2 [realistically, first slow down the increase, and later reverse it] ?
2. How could we reduce the LEVEL of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Reducing net CO2 emissions to zero by 2050 (an ambitious target to say the least), would still leave the planet with a level of CO2, and global climate, far above anything our civilization, and global economy, and the ecosystems it is based upon, have ever experienced. (Zero emissions does not mean CO2 back to 350, it means CO2 not going HIGHER than the 450, 500 or so that it is by then).
For (1): revenue-neutral carbon tax, phased in, in stages, would be the most effective single step (many other measures could and should be considered, starting with the ones that save rather than cost money (closing tax loopholes on fossil fuel production).
For (2): various forms of geo-engineering (too early to say which might be best advocated: technology still evolving, side-effects still little understood)
Realistically, THREE MAIN POLICIES, emissions-reduction, geo-engineering, and adaptation, are going to become realities of human life within the century, and for many centuries to come. Probably in reverse order when it comes to implementation. And today's anti-science deniers will be remembered for centuries as our generation's equivalent of the Nazis, for helping us blow the one-time chance to make pro-active emissions-reductions the cornerstone of the anyway inevitable long term economic transition.
Comprehensive restoration of the standing biomass in the oceans. Sustainable fisheries practices, establishment of marine reserves, realistic catch quotas, estuary and coastline rehab - all these are known to be necessary to prevent the complete collapse of our economically important fisheries. As we fight our way towards a legal environment that allows commercial fishing to survive, proper management will allow fish stocks to expand back towards historic levels, which even a century ago were more than 10x what they are today.. Oceanic productivity today is roughly equal to our fossil fuel CO2 production. Allowing that productivity to build up stocks of fish and shellfish will not only sequester carbon in those stocks, it also allows said stocks to export carbon to the deep ocean in the form of marine snow and to the shallows as shells and coral skeletons. Fishing will also become much more fuel-efficient.
Proper ocean management could go a long way toward solving our CO2 problems. If we need geoengineering on top of that, which I think likely, a robust ocean ecology with large standing stocks will make that task considerably easier and safer.
We would need more forests if we can planet 100 acres per 50 acres being lost we would be ok but there is very little chance of that happening. We need some Co2 for plant growth without it we would all eventuaally die.
If we were to go the cap and trade route, we should give the carbon credits directly to individuals, rather than to industries or corporations. To buy a hydrocarbon fuel, such as gasoline or natural gas, people would have to use their carbon credits. Some small businesses, or at least businesses which use only a small amount of hydrocarbon fuels, may be able to use the owners' credits. Other business would have to buy credits from the general public.
I'm sorry but I have no humane answer to your question, because humanity is the problem.
It is human nature to want to multiply and it is human nature for us to want to be comfortable during our life on earth. We are achieving comfort by improving health standards, improving agriculture and nutrition, and improving technological invention and industrial growth. Because of these achievements the human population is multiplying at a rate far greater than our planet can sustain.
Maybe this is a harsh comment and maybe our awareness of the environmental problem and future advances in energy efficiency, land management, and international cooperation will enable a reduction in CO2 levels. However, it seems to me that whatever we do technologically there will always be population growth, and when humanity finally runs out of technological solutions inhumane solutions,- such as war, disease, famine, etc - will step in to bring the population down.
So my answer is an inhumane answer. My answer is to control human population at levels our planet can sustain - not nearly as simple an answer as it may appear. The less inhumane way of doing this would be to lower the birthrate rather than increasing the death rate, but the developed nations need high birthrates to balance the effects of ageing populations and to maintain economic growth, and the developing nations see a young population as the only means of catching up.
My plan would be to create a United Nations organisation for population stability having three specific objectives -
1, The advance of family planning and birth control methods, research and education with a view to meeting sustainable population levels.
2. Research and international support for the technological advance of production methods requiring less human labour.
3. International agreement on population target levels on a country by country basis, having regard to each country's resource's and development needs.
The earth contains only so much CO2, much of it tied up in fossil fuels, that which is released will eventually be reabsorbed and O2 liberated.
Most of CO2 is absorbed by our oceans, there things we can do to increase that (iron fertilization for one) but all these are meddling and are likely to cause us much worse problems.
Leave it to mother nature, she will sort it out one way or another even if it means humanity dying out.
But so far I do not see any problems the fore-casted devastation, temp rise, sea rise, etc is not happening
Stop and reverse globalisation which is the root of many evils. Let countries regain their self sufficiency for food, goods and services instead of mass transportation of everything from tv's to bean sprouts.
In response to questions about carbon taxes and the like, I often see comments from denialists along the lines of "I don't see how fiscal policy could change the environment". But, the fact is that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere *has* increased (up roughly 40% from preindustrial times, afaik), the increase is largely due to the burning of fossil fuels (and deforestation), and that making something more expensive will make people use less of it.
So, everyone, especially skeptics and denialists: if you were told to come up with a plan to reduce humanity's net CO2 emissions to 0 by, say, 2050, what would your plan look like? Remember, due to the carbon cycle, we don't need to worry about the CO2 we breathe (all of that is from carbon recently removed from the air by plants), just the CO2 from burning fossil fuels, and from removing trees without replacing them. Assume you are making plans for the entire world, not just your own country.
(keep in mind, you can reduce net emissions to 0 by getting rid of all non-biological human CO2 emissions, by capturing as much CO2 as is released, or by reducing emissions and capturing the rest. Also, keep in mind that just planting trees won't cut it, trees only absorb so much CO2, you'd run out of land after a few years at best...)
Best answer will probably go to the plan that could most realistically meet the goal while doing the least damage to other valuable things, like freedom and economic growth.
change deserts into forests, by desalinating ocean water and irrigating them
Less methane..
defeat plutocracy
