This is in response to Mr. Brunell's letter detailing a lot of the ideas for sequestering carbon and using CO2 and suggesting that we fund America's innovators to work on such ideas.
I have no problem with that except that you should let loose only scientists who aren't profit-motivated (i.e., not corporations). What I have a problem with is that that's just the smallest part of what needs doing.
In the '80s James Hanson provided the science to show that global warning past 350 ppm would be very, very bad. Now we have species extinctions; ecosystems disappearing (and with them the last of the wild seed diversity for our common plant food varieties); rising oceans, melting ice, extreme weather.
Due to 50-year delays in natural systems, we are experiencing right now the results of what we did in the '70s. What we are doing to the environment right now determines the state of things in 2070.
Greta Thunberg said, "How dare you...come to us young people for hope" and urged immediate action instead. (Read her UN address: It does a better job of describing the state of things than I do).
Mr. Brunell, how dare you give people hope by listing things that might help a little while allowing them to leave in place the systems their comfort depends on? (You state that "CO2 is demonized" and that we should not (simply force) the government to ban products, processes, and stifle creativity").
I'm all for fine-tuned decision making. But Mr. Brunell's letter reeks of incrementalism when this is an existential emergency that calls for a New Deal. A Green New Deal, in fact.
Don't let fine-sounding ideas give you hope. Act.