In addition, psychologically speaking, the Holocaust brings up the whole topic of denial, which was unfortunately linked to climate change through a reference to that nutcake Armijebbidiah (or whatever,) the Iranian leader who infamously denied that the Holocaust even occurred and now causes severe offense to some who oppose the whole effort to combat climate change, 'denial' being the too-often and easily applied label for some who are skeptical but not in the relatively common psychological state of denial.
All that being said, one would have to think of population control via genocide such as practiced on the scale of the Nazis as a cure worse than the disease, not only in terms of philosophical concepts of freedom from the tyranny of government it represents (which is an all too mild way of describing the Holocaust), but also, if you just want to look at it in terms of CO2, very questionable. (again, 'questionable' is far too mild to most people-and me included-as a way of distilling your question down to the essence and trying to dismiss the horrible and disgusting vision of genocide.) Difficult as it is to look at it from the hypothetical perspective you suggest, consider the "carbon footprint" of World War II.
Quite frankly, I cannot personally distance myself from the emotional reaction that the Holocaust and the human tragedy of genocide provokes and dispassionately consider the environmental consequences, despite my effort to do so here. It practically makes me ill, and I am not alone in that feeling.
A Holocaust would be horrible for the environment. In fact, given our current ability to destroy ourselves with nuclear weapons, the idea of using war and mass killing should become an anathem to humanity. We need to bring ourselves up from this stupidity of war and destruction before we lose everything.
To answer your question specifically though, there would be no way of actually determining this, Wars are not structured events and do not follow plans. Anything more than an extremely limited use of nuclear weapons could cause such an environmental disaster as to make any "climate change" caused by CO2 seem like a drop of water in the Pacific.
Planting trees sort of works, but you need to bury the biomass. There are some carbon scrubbing ideas that could also work.
As JC pointed out, it is a cure worse than the disease. Your question regarding a "holocaust" isn't specific enough. If you killed all Koisan people, it probably wouldn't alter CO2 much at all.
I like trees as much as the next man but I also like deserts and grasslands. I don't think we need to go changing everything. If trees are the most adapted for an environment, they would probably already be there. If it makes you happy, plant a tree. I just don't think it is doing that much.
I think you're studying the wrong thing. CO2 in the atmosphere is actually VERY LOW and certainly doesn't need lowering. It's much, much lower now than it has been in the past.
It's a natural gas, and it's not only completely harmless, but it's actually essential for plants to survive!
If there wasn't enough CO2, all plants would die. If all plants died, oxygen would seriously decrease, and ultimately all animals (including humans) would also die.
Do you still think we should be looking for the best ways to decrease CO2?
The most obvious one is plant a billion trees, which would make our planet more healthy and beautiful, and create so many jobs, but that will not be done because climate change is all about politics, taxes and population control, not about the environment.
Do the calculations, how many tons of carbon in a mature tree, or forest.
Personally I want to see more CO2 in our atmosphere about 800ppm would be great, for a greener, more productive world, with surplus crops, and less land used up for agriculture.
Mention holocaust at your own risk. The horrendous genocide of over 6 million people is not something to flout with. Such suggestion would be deeply offensive to many people. You would certainly raise a few eyebrows, to say the least.
Kano one of the longest standing advice for "combating" climate change is planting trees. This strategy is low cost and not controversial so it has been supported heavily by many governments throughout the world. Even the current conservative government supports this policy.
Also many forests (especially production based) are state managed, and the government would make a much healthier profit from planting more trees than taxes (especially considering that the 'taxes' are usually established to create free markets and the governments eventually recieve no direct income).
Population control is largely due to socio-economic reasons ... hence why most developed nations have low birth rates compared to developing nations.
As suggested to the original post planting trees would be a better option (or reducing the rate of deforestation would even be better, which outstrips reafforestation rates).
Another better solution would be to reduce pollution. Currently there is the technology for all power resources to come from renewable sources ... similarly improving town planning so that people don't need to use a car as much (many cities in Europe have roads for bikes and cars are secondary users ... how many cities in the USA could achieve this??).
There are heaps of solutions to reducing emissions, and most would promote jobs (such as Kano alluded too), however there would need to be a huge change in culture for many areas, and industry would have to evolve too.
Yes.
As long as the bodies were interred instead of burned.
Are those who answer no holocaust deniers?
So you want to kill people in order to save them.
That is some very twisted 'logic' you have going there. Especially in light of the fact that CO2 is good for the planet and does NOT drive warming like Al Gore wants you to believe.
Top climate scientists say there is no man-made Global Warming.
The Great Global Warming Swindle
Right now im taking biology and im trying to figure out ways to lower CO2 levels in the air for a presentation. Any smart people want to tell me if this would be true because it would lower the CO2 output.
plant more vegetation.
So you're a Nazi, denialists are Nazis it's true
