“Let’s stop CO2 levels rising out of all control.”
Ok.
First, we do not have have control of CO2- in terms
of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Should it be a policy that we attempt to control Global CO2?
If we could control global CO2, what is a good level of CO2?
If we could control global CO2, would agree the higher levels of CO2
could be beneficial to most people and life in general on Earth?
How much is it worth to develop a system to control CO2?
Roughly: millions, billions, or trillions of dollars?
If we assume there will economic value in terms of crop production
from elevated CO2 levels, could this be a useful metric to assign
value?
Suppose at certain level above today’s level, there was a 10% increase
in production of crops worldwide.
One could calculate the total value of crops, and times this by 10%
to indicate the gross value of such a measure to have increased CO2 levels. One also assume if one increasing crop production, one would need less land grow these crops. And so using less land could also be regarded as a value.
So I am going not do a comprehensive analysis, but grab say US farm production, as example.
Cotton value per acre: 325.00
Corn (grain) 280.00
Wheat 110.00
Here:
“This food and fiber sector accounts for about one-eighth of the U.S. gross domestic product ($1.26 trillion in 2000) ”
So one could say a 10% increase would worth 126 billion per year.
Or $1.26 trillion over a period of 10 years
Therefore it seems reasonable that if one could find a way to control CO2 it would worth somewhere in excessive of 1 trillion dollars.
And therefore if something to learn how to control CO2 could worth
tens of billions dollar to develop.
It seems that a study and experiment that fertilized the ocean to test
the effective of such system could warranted, and should cost less than tens of billions of dollars over the lifetime of the study.
So purpose of program is not to lower global CO2, but to determine, if it could done, and the cost of doing it if this was desired.