Exactly, we will most likely take over the entire biosphere and use huge amounts of energy to make up for the cleaning and stabilization functions of the biota that won't be there any longer. We may even come to see acid rain as an acceptable price to pay to prevent global warming.
Luckily, we don't have more than 50 years of coal anyway. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
I looked into it, and first, BP is taking proven reserves. Estimated reserves are 10% higher, but that's not very much. Coal has grown very much over the past two years (around 5%) due almost entirely to China, but the 10-year average is 2.5%.
So if we factor in that coal will have to gradually replace oil and gas as a source of electricity, 4% growth or higher is necessary, otherwise the growth rate it will be lower, I think.
We may even come to see acid rain as an acceptable price to pay to prevent global warming.
Anthropogenic SO2 emissions have recently fallen by several percent per year. Because an SO2 sunscreen would increase SO2 emissions by several percent, it would set back progress in cleanup by several years. For example, if this were to start tomorrow, it would make the rain about as acidic as it was in 2004 (and reverse global warming, of course). We might not get back down to today's emission levels and resume progress until 2008.
If we suggest that delaying progress in SO2 cleanup by a few years might be worse than the effects of ongoing global warming, what would that mean? It seems to me that it would would be equivalent to announcing that global warming is an almost negligible problem.
(BTW, if we got good at making useful stuff, like greenhouses and photovoltaics, why would we be inclined to destroy the biosphere?) Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.
