[svorakang]

No. 0.2% of today's co2 is reduced with this approach, given that _all_ obese lose 10kg each, according to the article. This simply won't happen, and if it would, it would have a neglible effect.

Keep the carbon in the ground instead using other methods, and capture what you can to return safety to the geosphere.

[cousin_it]

Haha, interesting thought. For example if I have a bunch of dollars to spend on promoting renewable energy and such, how cost-effective is it to just... buy an oil well and sit on it? I mean, it will raise the price of oil, thus pushing people to develop better substitutes. And it has a certain beauty in not requiring any government involvement, private people can do this just fine. But it will also make current oil producers richer, and increase their incentive to find new oilfields (if only to sell them to you).

So that's the most direct way to interpret "keeping carbon in the ground", and I'm not sure it makes sense. Is there another way that makes more sense?

[moonchrome]

>Keep the carbon in the ground instead using other methods, and capture what you can to return safety to the geosphere.

The same way removing a knife from some you stab is going to return him to his previous state.

I love how chaos theory came out of climate modeling, but "if we just put CO2 back to the way it was everything is going to be fine". Also love that it's a given that climate is inherently stable and favourable to humans just because we happened to live in a period where it was.