Alan B, apart from going nuclear which will maybe reduce CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel power plants which account for no more than one third of human emissions, what else should the world do to prevent the apocalypse you're predicting?

Bernie Masters,

I don't know why you keep arguing about it because I just told you it's too late to fix the problem.

You are just going to have to learn how to die in the looming environmental catastrophe.

Your grim reaper mate, Mr Opinion.

Well, Bernie, We can, using proven technology extract vast quantities of CO2 from our oceans, then combine it with hydrogen we've created by catalytically cracking the water molecule, without adding a single milligram of new carbon to the atmosphere. And make endlessly sustainable fuels diesel jet fuel and petrol alternative we can never run out of!

Something like MSR thorium and prices that could be as low as 1 cent PKWH. Would make these projects commercially viable as we as creat humungous PERMANENT jobs.

Apart from that, we could underlay our highways and byways with a clingwrap thin layer of graphene then use that instead of much more vulnerable transmission tower to reticulate the nation's energy. This would allow all-electric vehicles fitted with an electromagnetic induction coil mounted in the undercarriage to use the subsequent electromagnetic field to recharge their vehicles on the fly and constantly. Graphene is around 200 times stronger than steel and is a superconductor!

This would be a good beginning and doable now. As for how we pay for all this? There're annual billions we could earn as the world's premier nuclear waste/unspent nuclear fuel, repository. Unspent fuel that can be more fully spent in MSR technology.

And where we could first use it as free energy we could apply to almost any industrial task! Rail guns to launch/catapult satellite-carrying rockets, e.g.?
Alan B.

Alan B said-

Well, Bernie, We can, using proven technology extract vast quantities of CO2 from our oceans, then combine it with hydrogen we've created by catalytically cracking the water molecule, without adding a single milligram of new carbon to the atmosphere. And make endlessly sustainable fuels diesel jet fuel and petrol alternative we can never run out of!

Answer-

I think this is what you are talking about... co2 splitting- electrolyze carbon dioxide to carbon monoxide, which is then mixed with hydrogen to produce liquid hydrocarbons like gasoline or kerosene that can be used as fuel.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/splitting-carbon-dioxide/

http://phys.org/news/2017-06-low-cost-carbon-dioxide.html

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b01265

http://www.sciencealert.com/the-first-low-cost-carbon-dioxide-splitter-means-a-brighter-future-for-clean-energy

Kerosene has one of the highest energy densities partly because of its liquid form. The Carbon in kerosene seems to store energy very efficiently probably because it has four bonds- kero as I understand consists of a number of chains from the alkanes group- it has one of the highest densities of chemical energy mediums- (obviously nuclear has much higher energy densities). Ammonia apparently can also be used to store energy relatively efficiently probably due to Nitrogens three bonds.

Basically the problem seems to be that there are too many people in the world using too much stuff. This seems to be the result of geopolitical adversarialism and a policy of some nations for massive population expansion.

Many are now saying that it's too late to stop global warming- I'm not sure but there are several other warning signs that indicate global issues related to human population- extinction of species, food supplies, oil, fresh water, bees, fish stocks, pollution, deforestation, desertification, inflation, debt levels, the average size of living space, average population density of nations, the speed of the internet, more draconian laws, ..

Claire lehmann of Quillette has a beautiful take on this issue of blame and responsibility, on claire@quillette.com11 :

"What worries me about today’s ideologies is that they are quick to blame human suffering on an out-group, and slow to offer inner peace and restoration. Whether it is blaming one group for systematic oppression, or another group for pulling strings behind the scenes, there is always some group or other to scapegoat in times of trouble. In contrast, if one looks at the ancient wisdom of traditional religions, we see that followers and believers are encouraged to endure pain and suffering, not blame others, and not pretend that it doesn't exist.

"Saint Augustine taught early Christians that suffering was universal to all humans. In the 16th century, Martin Luther encouraged his followers to empathise directly with Christ in his suffering, imagining the physical pain of crucifixion, and then imagining his forgiving and restorative love.

"It’s not just Christianity which promotes such spiritual practices. Tibetan Buddhists regularly meditate on their own death. Theravada Buddhists encourage a practice whereby one actively visualises the slow decay of one’s own corpse.

"While this may sound grotesque to our modern Western sensibilities, the psychological effects are far from it. The point of such contemplative practices is twofold: First, they promote the radical acceptance of reality by forcing us to look at what we’d rather turn away from. And second, they create gratitude. After sitting and contemplating our own pain and death, our gratitude for being alive is renewed, and we become thankful for the smallest of everyday experiences; watching a leaf falling to the ground, a soft breeze on the skin."

Very much worth thinking about as a start.

Joe

Don Aitkin said -

Dr Curry's conclusion appeals to me.

In context of the climate debate, the lesson from Covid-19 is this… the solution is problem solving and new technologies, not blame. While isolation and austerity can be invoked for short time periods, they are not solutions. The Covid-19 blame game didn't get in the way of finding a solution (i.e. vaccine). However, the rush to blame the fossil fuel companies and punish them is getting in the way of a sensible transition away from the worst impacts of fossil fuels on the environment.

Answer- Many believe that new technologies won't pollution issues- only reducing human population will- by reducing the birth rate in high population and high birth rate countries. Patrick Deneen says that the industrial revolution and libertarianism was predicated on increased control over the environment and a belief in unlimited growth and consumption which led to huge populations and pollution- in his view a change in mindset is required- not technology.