Would not that have massive CO2 footprint? It would be very expensive to pay for it. Vulcanic eruption is natural and does not count, but man-made emmisions require permit.
I'm pretty sure the Earth's atmoshphere is physically incapable of differentiating between man-released CO2 and naturally released CO2.
>> man-made emmisions require permit
Whose permit? On what authority? Even if such permit would be required, who would deny it if the alternative was literally the destruction of a large portion of the United States(if we are talking about Yellowstone exploding)?
I am sure that a minimum of the US Geological Survey and ACE will be involved in any supervolcano remediation plan. And probably FEMA but hopefully they won't need to act. ;)
Naturally released CO2 is harmless. There is a difference!
Eh? You are aware that if Yellowstone were to erupt it would literally mean the destruction of the United States. How is "defusing" the vulcano by detonating nukes "more dangerous" exactly?
>>Naturally released CO2 is harmless.
Again, atmosphere doesn't care - CO2 is CO2. Yes it doesn't count towards calculations that we currently do to model climate predictions, but it's not harmless, and a supervulcano event will fuck everything up, it doesn't magically stop having an effect just because it's natural.
Natural eruption would considerably reduce man made CO2 emmisions in near future. And nuclear winter from dust could stop global warming!
I imagine this is technically accurate, as an eruption of for example Yellowstone would utterly destroy most human civilization in North America.
Definitely impactful but not civilization ending.