His point is that the CO2 is not pollution in the same way that plastic in the Pacific gyre or PCBs in Love Canal are pollution. The excess CO2 is like the water from a flood caused by humans.
When you want to prevent floods, you need to find technologies and techniques that work with the laws of physics, natural systems, and economic forces. If you're going to build below sea level, what is the engineering required to compensate? Does the cost/benefit pan out? Likewise, if you're going to push the climate towards warming, what is the engineering required to compensate? Does the cost/benefit pan out? This is what Freeman Dyson and the authors he is reviewing are asking.
Nature doesn't care about us. But we humans have harnessed nature. Dyson is suggesting that we could do that once again to get us out of the current predicament.
I understand the economics viewpoint, I just don't see how being natural makes a difference for CO2 compared to, say, plastic. Sooner or later there will probably be organisms that can "digest" plastics, too.
Soon, there may well be bacteria that produce it. That would blur the lines a whole lot.
The difference is in the fact that there's been a Carbon Cycle for ages, just like there's been a water cycle for ages. Hydroelectric dams use energy in the water cycle. Gravity driven irrigation canals do as well. The point is that there's already a natural system out there that's capable of capturing huge amounts of carbon.
Sure, but ultimately it just boils down to "some miraculous future technology will fix it", biotech or whatever.
I think I read recently that the plants that were turned into oil actually are from a time when there was no process in nature yet that could process the bound carbon (similar to plastics today). So it was never part of the natural cycle.
I thought more about the proposed "super-carbon-harbouring trees", but really, how should that work? Any plant that does that would have to be more efficient than existing plants, meaning it would replace the natural plants. Dangerous game to play? (Those genetically engineered plants would definitely replace existing plants, if only because humans would plant massive amounts of them).
How are "super-carbon-harbouring-trees" any more dangerous than "super-flesh-growing-bovines"?
Remember that transportation is less than 1/5th of the US's use of petroleum. Since petroleum will be getting more and more scarce, something has to become the new chemical feedstock. Plants are an obvious choice.
I think it takes a lot of energy to raise "super-flesh-growing-bovines", the trees would have to work in a different way. Not sure what you mean by chemical feedstock.
Also, bovines are not popular in the CO2 scare-opinions.
Not saying that the trees couldn't work, but so far they don't exist, so they are nothing but a miraculous cure. Thinking about it, their mentioning makes that article lose a lot of authority in my opinion.
North America was overgrown with "super-flesh-growing-bovines" until white men up and shot them all.
Miracle game-changing technologies have been endemic in the history of human civilization. In fact, our current level of population wouldn't even be possible without a bunch of these happening. (From the "Green Revolution" of the 60's back to the development of the plough.)
When you want to prevent floods, you need to find technologies and techniques that work with the laws of physics, natural systems, and economic forces. If you're going to build below sea level, what is the engineering required to compensate? Does the cost/benefit pan out? Likewise, if you're going to push the climate towards warming, what is the engineering required to compensate? Does the cost/benefit pan out? This is what Freeman Dyson and the authors he is reviewing are asking.
Nature doesn't care about us. But we humans have harnessed nature. Dyson is suggesting that we could do that once again to get us out of the current predicament.