>I wonder how much extra carbon could be fixed in the Gulf of Mexico if we left ag runoff as it is and put enormous aquarium bubblers at the bottom of the ocean

>I wonder how much extra carbon could be fixed in the Gulf of Mexico if we left ag runoff as it is and put enormous aquarium bubblers at the bottom of the ocean around the Mississippi delta Who knows? I rather suspect that if you optimize for one metric--fixing carbon--you will compound the second order effects. >It really doesn't. Unless you're willing to advocate for suicide or genocide, it's not a problem that food policy needs to be concerned with I think it does need to be addressed. Nobody wants to advocate for genocide, and mass suicide is a hard sell, but if we stipulate that the Earth can only support X number of humans--an argument I'm not making in particular, but it has been made both now and in the past--you have to ask who gets to keep eating. While Ehrlich and others have made predictions that didn't pan out, they will eventually come true if the population continues to grow. Granted, that may be a 27th Century problem, but it may be a current-Century problem. We simply don't know. We have papered over the population growth issue pretty well so far. Technology does a good job of that. But again, it has come with the second order effects of overall carbon output. Massive climate disruption would do a pretty good job of selecting for only those people who can keep ahead of the problem technologically, which is the same thing as genocide, but sounds less gruesome I suppose.