> The concept is that we must reduce GHG in the atmosphere and oceans, and reduce the amount of new GHG added there. That's an assumption. I'm usually in favo

> The concept is that we must reduce GHG in the atmosphere and oceans, and reduce the amount of new GHG added there. That's an assumption. I'm usually in favour of fixing the original problem, as so much of what is wrong with society would be simpler to fix by focusing on the source, but we prefer technological solutions rather than be confronted with changing our behaviour. The problem with global warming is the source of the issue is extremely large, complex to reverse, and extremely difficult behaviour to change because it underpins economy. It is also one that is guided by economy on a global scale of supply and demand, making a single country green tends to just displace emmission to a poorer country (see what happened with coal). For GHG I think the human forces at play are way too strong. This one needs a solution that will unfortunately allow for GHG, because the weaning off on a global scale is way longer than you think, and reversing it is going to takel even longer. It's too late, we need climate engineering, i.e controlling the temperate with other mechanisms. We saw this in action during the transition to cleaner shipping fuels a couple of years ago. I'm not suggesting we polute more, but controlling temperate with particulates clearly works.