[grumblenum]

Ah, so we just eliminate low-cost transportation, agriculture, textiles and consumer goods and consequently starve billions of people. A modest proposal for such an ill-specified problem with unfalsifiable causes. I like it.

[nosianu]

I did not propose anything. I pointed out what the actual problem is. If you want to refute that, feel free.

Just because the problem is practically unsolvable does not equal it cannot be said out loud. Carbon above ground is going to increase and at most we can lower the speed of extraction, and until we have (sun-based energy) methods at scale to bring carbon back underground we will have to live with ever increasing CO2 levels.

A change in trend to more getting buried than brought up (full stop first is impractical, plus methods will have to be developed and tested step by step) is not even on the horizon of the most optimistic scenarios.

There are lots of people equating making the statement with "you say we should just do nothing" (I did not tell anyone about what they should/can/cannot do?) or with comments like yours, which is strange but very human.

[baq]

low cost now, high cost for grandchildren. if money is the problem, just print more, it isn't as important as habitability of this moist rock.

[jiri]

> low cost now, high cost for grandchildren.

[sarcasm] so, why transfer this "high cost" to grandchildren, let THEM solve whole problem of "habitability of this moist rock" [/sarcasm]

[amanaplanacanal]

It’s only low cost to you because you are making other people pay most of the costs. It’s a good trick.