Ice melting, seas rising, low lying lands in danger of flooding, yes, all lovely. What's a few million Bangladeshis really? And some Pacific islanders? don't care about them either. Oh, and the Somerset Levels.
I wonder if anyone's noticed the massive deforestation in the world, rather than tree planting.
Your science is a bit suspect. Providing more CO2 doesn't make plants grow faster or better. That would only be the case if we were near the lower end of CO2 concentration. As it is, if one tree can only use 1 bottle of CO2, the second bottle of CO2 is not going to get used no matter how hard the tree tries - it's a rarity that anything would need all the excess, and so it builds up.
Other carbon-binding tech? Such as? It'll be very expensive if not environmentally terrible. If CO2 levels would be a problem at that point, it's the same as the belief that there is a problem now. Maybe at this putative self-destruction point, people will think, "nah, someone will work out how to deal with it in the future."
Scientists and their pesky evidence, eh? awful people, let's ignore the data and throw up some unprovable options! I can't for the life of me see how sunspots would cause higher CO2 levels, and we know that higher CO2 levels leads to atmospheric temperature rise ('cos it's science). The rest is rhetoric with no more basis in fact than sunspots - there will be price to pay for fixing the problem, and it's a heck of a lot easier for richer nations to do that than poorer ones. Jack will be pleased that we're all right, though.
