Solving A Problem, Ostensibly

OVER THE PAST FIFTY YEARS, the Earth'spopulation has more than tripled, trillions of trees have been destroyed, and more than twelve thousand natural disasters, nearly all of them caused by climate change, have cost humanity roughly two trillion dollars in damage repair. (At the dawn of human civilization, the number of trees on Earth is estimated to have been about seven trillion; we are now reduced to less than half that number.) The resposne to this by the fossil fule industry has traditionally been to disregard it, and to claim that the problems are all made up, and that fossil fuel use has had nothing to do with the calamity. But traditions sometimes give way to reality. The industry eventually, belatedly decided that its position was neutral, then, with equal reluctance and hesitation, that the destruction of the environment was real. Finally, it acknowledged that fossil fuel consumption does indeed play a role, a minor one, in concert with nature. Only in the recent past has big oil and coal and natural gas unabashadly 'fessed up, acepting its complete responsiblity for environmental degradation, minus an earthquake or volcano or two. Opportunistically, the culprits themselves proposed a solution, hoping to get their feet away from the fire, so to speak, and to simultaneously present itself as the hero, as the solution rather than the problem. Carbon sequestration!... Simply remove the carbon from the atmosphere, turn it into solid chunks of coal, or diamond, or whatever, and store it underground...somewhere or other. The actual proposal was not made by members of the industry, but by environmental scientists, but, hey, who'll ever know? Why give credit where credit is due, when one can steal credit like a theif stealing the health of the planet and the future well being of those who live on its surface? Problem is, the solution is not so great after all. It turns out that even the most cursory examinatons of human and corporate nature clearly indicate, when analyzed by artificial and organic intelligence, that solving by any means possible the problem of carbon in the atmosphere is likely only to increase the willingness of big fuel to continue putting it there, for the sake of profit. (you know how people are...). Only a world wide ban on carbon emmissions will suffice. Either that, or as we like to say: back to the drawing board...