The grad student who wrote this is probably cackling and rubbing their hands together as we speak.<p>It does illustrate a solid point though, which is that it is ABSURD to talk about sequestering the amount of carbon required to avert the present crisis. Geoengineering is a pipe dream that would in almost every realistic case have blowback in both environmental and geopolitical domains that we couldn't manage.<p>We really have just one option here, reduce our CO2 output, and even if we do that today we're still in for one hell of a ride.
What a throwback to the glorious golden age of the atom! See<p><a href="https://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/VEAChapter1_Robocknew.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/VEAChapter1_Robocknew...</a>
This delights and concerns me. The best kind of delight, really.<p>"This paper presents a bold proposal" - don't they mean a modest proposal?
> Detonating a 81 Gt nuclear device could cause a global catastrophe if done improperly.<p>But it would probably be a lot more affordable than the other suggestions involving thousands of planes spraying sulfur dioxide every day for the rest of eternity.