Controversial Spraying, Sun-Dimming Method Aims To Curb Global Warming (cbsnews.com) 256
Scientists are proposing an ingenious but as-yet-unproven way to tackle climate change: spraying sun-dimming chemicals into the Earth's atmosphere. From a report: A fleet of 100 planes making 4,000 worldwide missions per year could help save the world from climate change. Also, it may be relatively cheap. That's the conclusion of a new peer-reviewed study in Environmental Research Letters. It's the stuff of science fiction. Planes spraying tiny sulphate particulates into the lower stratosphere, around 60,000 feet up. The idea is to help shield the Earth from just enough sunlight to help keep temperatures low. The researchers examined how practical and costly a hypothetical solar geoengineering project would be beginning 15 years from now. The aim would be to half the temperature increase caused by heat-trapping greenhouse gases. This method would mimic what large volcanoes do. In 1991, Mount Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines. It was the second largest eruption of the 20th century, according to the United States Geological Survey (USGS). In total, the eruption injected 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide aerosols into the stratosphere. USGS said the Earth's lower atmosphere temperature dropped by approximately 1-degree Fahrenheit. The effect only lasted a couple of years because the sulfates eventually fell to Earth.
The sulfates that fell to earth (Score:2)
David Bowie was great in that movie.
Re: The sulfates that fell to earth (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: The sulfates that fell to earth (Score:5, Funny)
Ever heard of ACID RAIN?
That was Prince, not Bowie.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought that was a Gatorade flavor.
Re:The sulfates that didn't fall to Venus. (Score:2, Interesting)
Here's an interesting thought experiment: What if spraying all that sulfur in the atmosphere is exactly what lead to the sulfuric acid in Venus' atmosphere? Given the difference in gravity and distance to the Sun, obviously our mileage might vary, and even be successful. But just imagine for a minute that planet went through the same cycle, and its foolish inhabitants decided to try the same solution.
Now we would have two dead planets in the system and no other planet in a position for life to spring forth
Scorch the Sky (Score:2)
"But we do know it was us that scorched the sky."
- Morpheus
Re: (Score:2)
I think I read the plot in this story in the "Fallen Angels" book by Larry Niven.
Scorch the Sky (Score:2, Insightful)
"We don't know who struck first, us or them, but we know that it was us that scorched the sky."
--Morpheus
The Conspiracy nuts will love this idea (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Came here to say the same thing.
What they really need to do, to crank it over 9000, is to just modify passenger jets to do this. Best way will be to put the chemicals in the fuel.
Re: (Score:2)
The tin foil hat crown is already insane. This will make zero different to them. (Which, I'd guess, is about as much positive difference as it will make to the environment.)
Re: The Conspiracy nuts will love this idea (Score:3)
Thank you. Testing this is exactly what many of the original chem trails conspiracies were about, including chemical samples collected from snow on ground and reported respiratory issues from people living in remote areas with military overflights presumably testing. How it morphed into contrails being chemtrails and mind altering chems I donâ(TM)t know.
Re: (Score:2)
How it morphed into contrails being chemtrails and mind altering chems I donÃ(TM)t know.
Easy, people get freaked out. It's easy for them to convince themselves that all the contrails are chemtrails because they've got no way to tell them apart (aside from the ones that dissipate within five minutes, as contrails tend to do.)
The military has pioneered several actual patents on artificial cloud formation, so anyone who doesn't believe that they have already been doing this is a dumbshit on an even higher level than the people who think every contrail is a chemtrail.
Re: (Score:2)
Can I just state the obvious? (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't be the only person thinking this... but I think we humans have hit a point where we can safely say injecting -more- chemicals into the environment should, at best, be a very last resort. Preferably, not on the table at all, ever.
Failure to disclose affiliations? (Score:2)
> The effect only lasted a couple of years because the sulfates eventually fell to Earth.
Did Big Pharma quietly fund this? They do love their lifetime subscriptions. This is right up their alley.
Yeah, I recognize this approach (Score:2, Insightful)
It's called a hack. Rather than fix the root problem, just work around it. With enough hacks, you arrive at an unmaintainable legacy system. The you have to build a new one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a terrible way to think of it.
Yes, it is a hack. But, given that it is 100% impossible to fix the root problem in any meaningful way before global catastrophe, any band-aid solution that will buy us some time should be considered.
Re: (Score:2)
That man over there is going to destroy the world. We must kill him now.
What's wrong with that? Among other things, a false assumption, same as your false assumption of global catastrophe.
Re: (Score:2)
Among other things, a false assumption, same as your false assumption of global catastrophe
Like the false assumption that the earth orbits the sun, when it is obvious that the sun orbits the earth - just look up!
Or, the assumption that you are not an idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't that the plot of the Matrix? (Score:3)
This sounds about as reasonable as the plot to those movies.
So... we pollute the atmosphere in a way that causes heat to be trapped due to a buildup of carbon dioxide and similar greenhouse gasses.
The solution would seem to be to rely on less polluting energy generation mechanisms, since the fossil fuels are inherently less cost effective over time anyway.
But this idea seems to be to ... filter out the sunlight - and prevent us from being able to use any other energy source but fossil fuels until we run out, and have black skies, I guess?
You know how... evil that process sounds, right?
Like, cartoonishly evil.
Ryan Fenton
Re:Isn't that the plot of the Matrix? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is there's a very vocal and politically active group which opposes the one power generation solution we already have which solves the problem - nuclear power.
Environmentalists suffer from what I call Just Right-itis. The insistence that there is just the right amount of global warming occurring. Enough that mankind is in mortal danger, so we have to take drastic action quickly. But not so much that we need to switch to a different power source ASAP. Instead there's just the right amount of global warming so that we can spend decades developing completely new power sources, meanwhile continuing to burn fossil fuels thus exacerbating the problem.
It's like finding out a asteroid will hit the Earth in a few decades and wipe out all life on it. But then staunchly opposing deflecting the asteroid using existing technology which is already capable of dealing with it, and instead insisting that completely new technology be developed to deal with the asteroid. This reasoning only makes sense if you value your pet technology over the survival of life on Earth. Their primary goal isn't stopping and arresting global warming. It's using it as a vehicle to drive the transition to renewable power, even if that means risking all life on Earth.
Nuclear power doesn't have to be the end game. The #1 priority should be getting off fossil fuels. We can do that with nuclear, buying ourselves decades if not centuries to develop renewables and batteries until they're in a state which can handle base load. Then we can switch from nuclear to renewables. If you oppose this most rational course of action, then you force us to start coming up with more and more desperate ideas to stave off disaster, like polluting the atmosphere in order to save it.
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree with you in principle, there are practical problems with nuclear power.
The first is that they usually end up a lot more expensive to build, run, and decommission than estimated in the planning stage; partly due to stringent regulation, as well as the required expertise. Nuclear does need strong oversight, because it's way too tempting for operators to start cutting corners to save operating costs, and we have multiple examples of nuclear contamination when that happened. Yes, new designs are a
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is there's a very vocal and politically active group which opposes the one power generation solution we already have which solves the problem - nuclear power.
Stop lying, it makes you a liar. That's not even the most workable solution.
Nuclear power doesn't have to be the end game. The #1 priority should be getting off fossil fuels. We can do that with nuclear,
but only if we're total dumbfucks since that actually costs more than doing it with renewables. Since we live under capitalism, you have to account for the cost. And renewables are cheaper than nuclear. So why would you even suggest nuclear?
Re: (Score:2)
There is a significant difference between baseload nuclear generation and renewable generation. If you include the cost of storing energy for nights, cloudy, or windless days then the economics of nuclear power make a great deal more sense.
I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm saying it's an apples and oranges comparison if you only look at the dollars-per-megawatt number.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a significant difference between baseload nuclear generation and renewable generation.
*ahem* [google.com]
I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm saying it's an apples and oranges comparison if you only look at the dollars-per-megawatt number.
We're getting to the point where solar+battery is cheaper than nuclear, which eliminates any imagined relevant difference, so who cares?
Re: (Score:2)
So... we pollute the atmosphere in a way that causes heat to be trapped due to a buildup of carbon dioxide and similar greenhouse gasses.
We have an industrial revolution and greatly increase life span and quality of life? Yes.
The solution would seem to be to rely on less polluting energy generation mechanisms, since the fossil fuels are inherently less cost effective over time anyway.
If fossil fuels are inherently less cost effective over time anyway then you have nothing to worry about. No need for energy gestapos.
But this idea seems to be to ... filter out the sunlight - and prevent us from being able to use any other energy source but fossil fuels until we run out, and
have black skies, I guess?
The idea is to have a technological solution - or at least, tool to push things in the right direction - for a fiendishly difficult problem that actually can't simply be solved with cartoonish mandates.
Re: (Score:2)
Highlander II levels of evil.
Bring back ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is "controversial" how the write chose ... (Score:4, Funny)
yellow is the color (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My plants don't like sulfates. They told me so.
Well, they sure as hell like sunshine.
Dumb, dumber, dumbest (Score:2)
We have a hugely complex system that we don't really nderstand. Some people think that human activity may be influencing that system, although absolutely none of the predictive models we have actually work. So...the answer to a non-understood influence on a non-understood system is: muck with the system some more.
How about we first invest in climate monitoring, and try to understand the whole system? If global warming is such an important issue, why is the number of monitoring stations monotonically decreas
Re:Dumb, dumber, dumbest (Score:5, Insightful)
We have a hugely complex system that we don't really nderstand. Some people think that human activity may be influencing that system, although absolutely none of the predictive models we have actually work. So...the answer to a non-understood influence on a non-understood system is: muck with the system some more.
How about we first invest in climate monitoring, and try to understand the whole system? If global warming is such an important issue, why is the number of monitoring stations monotonically decreasing, especially in regions like the Arctic?
So, if you were in a car which was heading towards a concrete wall, and someone said "Hit the brakes!", you'd say "No, first we need to be sure which part of the wall we're going to hit"?
I mean, yes, we don't have 100% precise models for climate change. That doesn't mean we should immediately give up. We don't have 100% precise models of how a commercial airline will fly from LAX to EWR, and yet dozens of planes manage to complete that route each day. Crazy, isn't it? It's almost like we could just work on the biggest emitters up front, and assume that in the future someone will figure out how to deal with the more subtle sources.
Re: (Score:3)
you're confused.
we don't even have 20% accurate models for climate change. I've been following the models for 25 years, they're bullshits and useless.
how about we just stop carbon pollution instead. I'm actually more concerned about ocean acidification and near term health issues from breathing radioisotopes of coal.
Re: (Score:2)
LOLZ no Hansen's model not even close to what is happening, was too high for temperature
You think pulling a piece of garbage out of the far past is going to make it so no one can argue with you? guess again
Ah, so the snowpiercer method (Score:2)
Well, I hear babies will taste the best.
Please Don't fuck with sunlight (Score:2, Interesting)
Tesla owners
Well .... (Score:2)
CO2 emissions will still hurt (Score:2)
Expelling CO2 into the atmosphere faster than the rest of the system can take it up still has dire consequences. Ocean acidification, for example. If that worsens, anything that needs a shell to live is going to die off. That includes the base of the food web - coral and plankton. That will happen no matter how much sunlight you block.
So no, there is no substitute for a stable climate, and the wealth the rich will hoard from causing the decline will not help even them in the end.
Political factor (Score:3)
..not again... (Score:2)
Oh sure (Score:2)
Josie & the Pussycats in space (Score:2)
We must try these... shades...
And the effect on solar collectors? (Score:3)
Any thoughts about what this might do to those who have invested in solar energy production like homeowners with PVCs on their roofs and Tesla's PowerPack installation in South Australia?
Seems like terraforming Earth is just begging for unintended consequences.
Transarctica / Arctic Baron (Score:3)
Careful (Score:2, Insightful)
My usual warning: be careful with amelioration efforts lest you accidentally induce another ice age, which will kill billions in a few years, not cause mild difficulties moving in from the coasts over a century.
Ice ages can come on in a year or two -- you just nee enough snow and cool temps so the snow pack doesn't melt in summer one year.
Re: (Score:2)
My usual warning: be careful with amelioration efforts lest you accidentally induce another ice age,
This is an ice age. We want another one.
Murphy alert! (Score:3)
snowpiercer (Score:2)
enough said.
What could possibly go wrong? (Score:2)
These people scare me much more than "climate change" ever will.
Funny.... (Score:2)
Re:Operation Dark Storm ? (Score:5, Interesting)
"We don't know who struck first, us or them, but we know that it was us that scorched the sky. At the time, they were dependent on solar power and it was believed that they would be unable to survive without an energy source as abundant as the sun."
While I don't think this idea is quite as extreme as the Matrix. I do wonder what the impact would be on solar power globally. Since the wind currents could also be affected, what issues could it cause for current wind power plant locations too?
Re:Operation Dark Storm ? (Score:5, Informative)
It's an apocalyptic idea, and has an insane amount of unmitigated risks. It's an "end-game strategy" that will irreversibly alter our entire planet, and will be the ultimate Anthropocene Epoch event; this will be our Chicxulub.
Re: (Score:3)
How is it not viable? It's very feasible to build 100 planes. It's also feasible to fly them 3-4 times per month. 20 million tons spread across 4000 flights isn't all that much.
As for unintended consequences, we're pretty clear on the atmospheric chemistry aspect. It's going to stay up there for a bit, then mix with water and precipitate out as slightly more acidic rain. There's nothing else that can really happen. You don't seem to understand how much atmosphere we have, and how there is nothing up at 60,0
Re: (Score:2)
20 million tons are 20.000.000 tons. Divided through 4000 flights means every flight has to lift 5000 tons of whatever into the atmosphere to get a similar effect as the Pinatubo eruption e.g. 1 degree Fahrenheit.
Now please tell me where we get planes capable of lifting 5000 tons. I'm sure NASA would be very interested too considering it would make launches easier and probably cheaper.
Geoengineering is a pipedream of technocratic imbeciles. However, we might get desperate enough to actually do it sooner tha
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what that symbol means. The choices are "20,000,000" "20000000" and "20 000 000."
The thing you said is twenty point zero and then you said zero point zero right after it without a space.
Re: (Score:2)
The world doesn't end at the US border. Other countries use different things than decimal points
And please spare me the "/. is a US site" BS.
Re: (Score:2)
Now please tell me where we get planes capable of lifting 5000 tons.
Forget the airplane flights, we could do this much more easily and cheaply with high altitude artillery, similar to what is presently in use by the world's militaries for anti-aircraft roles. We already have auto-cannons capable of firing shells into the stratosphere. It should be possible to setup a network of remote artillery bases with automatic loading and firing controlled by computer and firing more or less continuously. In fact, this would probably be much cheaper than maintaining a fleet of heavy lift airplanes. Each shell would be loaded with a designated quantity of sulfur compounds and set to detonate automatically at the prescribed altitude or after a set amount of time. This technology was available in it's basic form during World War I, over 100 years ago, and has by now reached a very refined and technically mature status.
You are thinking too literally. Yes, ballistic launching. But they wouldn't be explosive shells, they would just be sulfur dioxide tanks that release their payload at altitude then parachute back to Earth to fall into an impact area for refilling and relaunch. Think Falcon rockets, to make things cheap, make them reusable. And we could launch them with vertical launch tubes in the ground using hydrogen and oxygen as the propellant mixture. The muzzle velocity would be relatively slow for artillery, maybe 70
Re: (Score:3)
How is it not viable? It's very feasible to build 100 planes. It's also feasible to fly them 3-4 times per month. 20 million tons spread across 4000 flights isn't all that much.
4000 flights the first year. And then increasing by 4000 per year until they reach 60,000 flights per year.
Which is as far as their analysis goes. They end with "at this point, we'll probably think of a better way of dispersing the SO3."
Re: (Score:2)
Just nuke Yellowstone. Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a foolish plan that is not viable and can have unintended consequences. It would be easier to build new nuclear reactors
Didn't they say the same thing about those very nuclear reactors you're proposing to build when the idea was first mooted?
Re: (Score:2)
Please stop with the nuclear power plants. They're too expensive to build and take a long time to build as they almost always go way over the estimated time.
The best thing to do is to take the money and invest in efficiency so that you don't need to build the new plant in the first place. I see large buildings being constructed and at the top they still have the large air conditioning units installed. It would be much more efficient to use a ground source heat pump for the heating and cooling in the buildin
Re: (Score:2)
The price of (and time required to build) nuclear plants is greatly increased by the lawsuits by anti-nuke hysterics that start flying as soon as a new nuke plant is proposed.
Re: (Score:2)
Back around 2013 the province Ontario wanted to add a new plant to the grid and sent out a request for proposals. The least expensive one that came back was in the area of $13B per reactor and there was going to be two reactors. This was the starting point. Permissions weren't going to be a big deal as they were going to build it beside an existing plant. The government dropped it as it's too expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because the production lines are stopped and you would have to pay to restart them. This includes the suppliers as well. Another issue is that as the industry progressed in the 1970s designers moved on from 250 MW reactors to ever larger reactors to reach efficiencies in construction costs per Watt. Eventually we got to 1 GW reactors. However these reactors were then built in such low numbers that it became impossible to maintain their support infrastructure.
Re: (Score:2)
s/support/manufacture/
Re: (Score:2)
If efficiency led to reduced work, we'd all have a four-hour work week. Efficiency makes cheaper power, which leads to increased usage. It's a zero-sum game.
Re: (Score:2)
As for cost did you know if Germany or California had invested in new Nuclear instead of renewables they would already have a 100% clean electrical grid?
That's a very peculiar argument. You're comparing what should be a mature industry (nuclear) with something that needed to be rapidly developed (wind and solar power), and that meant initially getting not a lot of value for a lot of money, before the prices of the equipment due to industry advances reached the contemporary low levels which makes the old prices irrelevant for both new developments in Germany AND the rest of the world (~100x larger than Germany). And I'm not even sure you're comparing apples
Re: (Score:2)
You clearly have not read a lot about nuclear power. Reactor running costs are a tiny fraction of the construction costs.
Re: (Score:2)
You clearly have not read a lot about nuclear power. My country's major nuclear power plant's total operating costs have exceeded its construction costs after about thirteen years of operation. Which means that by the time the plant is decommissioned, its construction costs will have constituted about 25% of the total costs. Less if the lifetime is prolonged and/or the maintenance costs increase later in the plant's life. So according to you, 300% of the construction costs are "a tiny fraction of the const
Re: (Score:2)
Where did I say that we have to stay with fossil fuels? I said that nuclear is too expensive. That leaves a lot of other viable alternatives. And getting everything more efficient is a great way to help things out. No matter how you plan to electrify the grid the more efficient everything is the fewer power plants you need to build. Even if you are for nuclear power you should still be for increasing the efficiency of everything because it decreases the number of power plants the need to be built in order t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have not read enough. Currently KNOWN uranium reserves are known to be able to last decades with current reactor technology. With integral fast reactors it would be centuries. That would be more time than what it took us to go from the industrial revolution to this day. By then we might have figured out something better to use.
Re: (Score:2)
The sun is already doing a great job of dimming itself [express.co.uk], thanks much. Maybe see how long that goes on for
Oh, sure, wait and see. You know who else had a "wait and see" attitude? Jim Henson. And now we have wrong-sounding muppets.
Sun is not dimming. [Re:The Biggest Danger] (Score:3)
The sun is already doing a great job of dimming itself [express.co.uk], thanks much.
The sun is not "dimming itself". This is the sunspot cycle, which involves a "dimming" in total solar irradiance (TSI) of 0.1%, not enough to make a difference in climate... and the sun's been doing this for as long as we've been observing.
The part of the article you linked saying that the "thermosphere (the uppermost layer of air around our planet) is cooling and shrinking" refers to the thermosphere, which is the part of the atmosphere above 100 km altitude-- basically, orbital altitude and above. That
Sun is quieting to be more accurate (GSM) (Score:3, Interesting)
This is the sunspot cycle, which involves a "dimming" in total solar irradiance (TSI) of 0.1%
Aha, I see you do not know much about solar science, and you don't seem to realize what is happening - so I will help you understand.
This is not just "the sunspot cycle". Perhaps you missed the part where it was two years earlier than the cycle would have had it dip normally?
At times the sun enters what is called a Deep, or Grand Solar Minimum [electroverse.net], and the drop in solar irradiance is far more than the number you gave.
Re:Sun is quieting to be more accurate (GSM) (Score:4, Informative)
Here's a summary of their claims from a more respectable source:
https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
As any good source should, they link directly to the actual articles and you can read them yourself. This is a published comment on her method:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/... [sciencedirect.com]
In short, she's using an oversimplified model of the sun, knows nothing about the impact on climate and the implications would anyway be very small (-0.3C compared to a warming of +0.2C per decade).
I remember the solar cycle was a popular scape goat for global warming about 20 years ago but the focus shifted after a few years when there was just to much science showing the effect was minimal. Back then, the claim was that sunspots caused more solar storms and a "huge" amplifying effect due to cloud formation etc. Further research showed the effect was small and the deniers changed focus. This seems like a remake.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's always the same with you liberals... Someone else needs to do it..
Well since conservatives have 2-3x the carbon footprint of liberals, it's more effective if they do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I say do it (Score:2)
No, and No (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you look at this? They said 4000 flights per year in the first year, increasing to 60,000 flights per year in year 14.
Yow.
...and, yes, I'm not sure what other impacts of 1.5 million tons of sulfur burned into the upper atmosphere per year will be, but "acid rain" is the first thing that comes to mind.
Re: (Score:2)
"No" is correct.
Did you look at this? They said 4000 flights per year in the first year, increasing to 60,000 flights per year in year 14.
Yow.
That sure sounds like a lot, doesn't it? Now compare and contrast that to the 87,000 flights per day in the US alone right now. All of a sudden, it doesn't sound like quite that big a number, huh?
(Other environmental concerns notwithstanding, of course.)
Re: (Score:2)
They could spray or spread the sulfur as a powder, no need to burn it, one would think. The volcanoes pumped out sulfur dioxide, but the original link says sulfur particulates, particles, powder.
I'd be more concerned about how many tons of jet fuel it would take to haul 20 million tons of sulfur particulates into the stratosphere.
And yes, one must wonder of the side effects of all that sulfur dust settling back down on the land and oceans.
Re: (Score:2)
You know another thing which spreads sulfur dioxide? Burning high sulfur diesel and non-scrubbed coal. There is just a little problem called acid rain.
Can't stop carbon when paid by the tar sands oil (Score:5, Informative)
Author of the "study" is Gernot Wagner, an economist and a co-director [wikipedia.org] of Harvard's Solar Geoengineering Research Program - with David W. Keith.
Dave-boy also likes spraying sulfuric acid in the air as a solution for global warming, [cc.com] while arguing that more windmills will cause "significant warming" [slashdot.org] (which IS bullshit BTW [slashdot.org]).
Dave also runs a business [wikipedia.org] where his main preoccupation is coming up with clever ideas how to keep those N. Murray Edwards tar sands oil dollars coming in.
Carbon Engineering is funded by several government and sustainability-focused agencies as well as by private investors, including Microsoft founder Bill Gates and oil sands financier N. Murray Edwards.[5][6][7]
TLDR: It's a bullshit study, created for the benefit of dirtiest of oil industries, so they could have something to point at and claim that burning tar ain't really that bad, all things considering.
Re: (Score:2)
That said, I'm not sure that the study isn't bullshit, but just because people from big oil are attached, doesn't necessarily invalidate it.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, let's kill you first.
Re: (Score:3)
As a long time resident of California, I can only say you give Californians far too much credit. They're far stupider than that. They believe what politicians tell them. Anything politicians tell them.
You got it wrong (Score:2)
And yet some how they've managed to create the 5th largest economy on the planet.
News flash, your problem with Californians is actually a problem with people.
Re: (Score:2)
The good people of Chernobyl know what a great job the government can do at running nuclear power stations. Come to think of it, where do public utilities get their corporate charter?
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody's Mommy didn't hug him enough when he was young, I guess.
Can't say I blame her.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We won't. But we'll turn the world into a giant desert. That's what typically happens when CO2 levels are low. Plants, like, eat the stuff.