[dlnovell]

It's not about what's easier, and it's not an either/or proposal. Atmospheric CO2 is currently around 419ppm. Even if we cut our CO2 emissions to zero tomorrow, we still have 419ppm. The temperature might stop going up, but it's not going to go back down unless we get greenhouse gasses out of the atmosphere.

Most importantly, it's not certain that runaway warming can't happen even at our current temperature. Methane is being released from permafrost at our current levels of warming and is 20x as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2. Also, our natural carbon sinks (the ocean, macroalgae, forests, soil) are in decline whether or not we stop emitting CO2 - so CO2 may keep going up anyway as we lose biomass.

And let's be honest with ourselves here, we're not cutting emissions to 0 tomorrow. Or next year. Or by 2030. Or by 2050 most likely.

We have to reduce emissions, at a level that seems inconceivable. We ALSO have to pull CO2 back out, again, at a level that seems inconceivable. The ability to scale up CO2 removal to a planetary scale requires that we accelerate development right now.

[r00fus]

I wonder if atmospheric CO2 increase is correlated with the massive reduction in insect biomass we've seen. If so, would it be possible for us to reverse if we decrease insecticides and allow insect population regrowth.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_in_insect_populations

[heavyset_go]

> I wonder if atmospheric CO2 increase is correlated with the massive reduction in insect biomass we've seen.

A byproduct of increased atmospheric CO2 levels is an increase in vegetative growth. My naive assumption is that more plant mass means more food and habitat for insects.