At the heart of our failure to end the climate crisis lurks an ethical dilemma. A recent survey shows that 85 percent of Americans agree that “We have a moral responsibility to create a safe and healthy climate for ourselves and our children.”

Yet to do this, we need not only reach net-zero emissions: We also need to pull down a trillion tons of "legacy" carbon already the air. Here's the catch: effective, large-scale CO2 removal is essentially banned by widely accepted UN climate goals that date from 1992. Drafted in a vastly different climate era, the UN agreement calls for "stabilizing" greenhouse gases and preventing human interference in the climate system.

Do we restore the climate so that humanity and nature can survive and thrive? Or do we continue to honor the outdated goal of not "interfering?"
Cost-Effectiveness of CO2 Removal Methods

This first Working Paper addresses costs and effectiveness of a wide variety of carbon-dioxide removal (CDR) methods. Not all CDR methods are equal to the task of climate restoration, and costs may vary by a ratio of 30,000 to one.

As with CO2, reducing methane emissions is important--but not sufficient to keep us safe. Nature continuously oxidizes methane in the atmosphere, but can't now keep up.
We can help her out by using the same process.

What's the swiftest, most cost-effective way to safely remove tens of gigaton of CO2?

The answer may surprise you: It's how Nature leads up to ice ages. And it involves iron dust.

​

Can't remember the last time you read positive climate news? Look no further. A better future is possible.

Could we really restore a historically safe climate by 2050?

"Net zero" alone can't get us there--because we would also have to remove a trillion tons of "legacy" CO2 that's been accumulating since 1750.

The best bet is to follow Nature's lead. She's been removing CO2 for eons.


​