https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration
It costs about $550 to remove a ton of CO2 from the atmosphere. Alternatives, such as sequestering CO2 from seawater, may be cheaper, around $150. I'm going to stick with the higher estimate.
To just tread water we'd need to remove as much CO2 as we're adding presently.
Current global emissions are 9.875 gigatons (billion tons).8 Let's call it 10 gigatons to make the math easier.
That's 550 * 10 billion or $5,550 billion dollars per year in carbon sequestration. A thousand billion is better known as a trillion (in the US), and the US GDP is about $15 trillion.
This would equal 1/3 of total US economic output.
On a global scale, GDP is about $70 trillion, so we're looking at 1/12 of the global economy. Call it an 8% tax on everything.
It's the sort of thing a unified international effort might accomplish, but it's well beyond the reach of even the single richest person or corporation.
There's the additional problem that once you remove the CO2, you've got to hold on to it. That's 10 Gt you'd have to freeze or compress and essentially hold in storage for a few thousand years. That's a considerable warehousing project.
Not releasing the CO2 in the first place may be strongly preferable.
------------
Correction: I'd read off the 10 Gt value not realising it was carbon, rather than CO2. Actual is 35 Gt CO2, so multiply dollar amounts and percentages by 3.5.
That's $19.25 trillion, or more than the total US GDP, and 28% of total global GDP. Or a ~30% tax on everything.
Well, given the cost it looks like relocating NYC by itself is going to be, it might be worth it to pursue some research into energy efficient processes that can break the CO2 down.
> There's the additional problem that once you remove the CO2, you've got to hold on to it. That's 10 Gt you'd have to freeze or compress and essentially hold in storage for a few thousand years. That's a considerable warehousing project.
I was proposing putting money into researching a technique / process to break the CO2 down into O2 and carbon. Carbon has uses that would freeze it outside the carbon cycle for a long time.
> Not releasing the CO2 in the first place may be strongly preferable.
Well, from all the news, its too late now, so we might need to go to some other solution.
The former are 10 Gt/yr. Latter 35 Gt/yr. Cost exceeds total US economic output, or 28% of global GDP.
Keep in mind: that's per year, forever. Or at least so long as there's carbon to burn. Probably about a century inclusive of all hard-to-get coal.
Your other statement is an article of faith, not evidence.
Also, think about how much of the Earth is covered in plants that already do this -- I'm doubtful we could come up with something that could match the current CO2->O2 capacity of all the Earth's plants and algae.
> Also, think about how much of the Earth is covered in plants that already do this -- I'm doubtful we could come up with something that could match the current CO2->O2 capacity of all the Earth's plants and algae.
We need to make up the delta not replace what's there.