The Great Siberian Thaw

"want to avoid potential impact on crops"

I'm not trying to demonize you pointing this out, but the semantics of this is interesting and typical of modern engineering, and it is in the same blind spot that economics has...

No I'm not interested in crops as all. I don't care about farm yields, profitability, market fluctuations, food supply or all.

I am concerned about the stability and long term survival of the biosphere. Yes, so that we don't go extinct, but more that that, so that we aren't living in domes in a no longer life supporting planet.

Of course, engineering (and economics) are disciplines that can only work on the basis of things they can measure. Your statement basically refers to something that is measurable: crops and crop yields.

But do we have economic or engineering measurements of the health of local and global biomes, beyond "wow they are a lot worse than they used to be"? Do we have any way of saying "this engineering project or economic policy will result in this degradation to the almost infinitely complex natures of habitats and biomes? We do not. We don't even really have good approximations.

What is disturbing is that the approximations we DO have, like species extinctions, population declines in top species, qualitative observations of ecosystems, go functionally and absolutely ignored in policy, and by economics. Engineering, which produces the only hopes of technological solutions to our problems, still is riddled with the "make it work, don't worry that much about side effects" (well, since that's all the management and budget economics allow).

I harp on engineers in this case because in my experience they are strangely conservative and republican, and by extension, anti-environment. I believe this is because every large engineering project has this stage:

"The environmental impact review"

Which is a huge blob of uncertainty, and engineers hate uncertainty. And therefore, by human nature, they hate the thing the uncertainty surrounds. And so they hate environmental reviews, and they hate the environment.

This really really really needs to change.

This is an incredibly new development and is based entirely on prosperity.

For most of history of democracy and capitalism, individuals made altruistic choices for their own future generations - not for humanity, but for their own children.

It's only during the post-war boom (and only in the countries that were undamaged by the war) did automatic prosperity become the ubiquitous expectation.

And even in that context, immigrant parents made similar sacrifices.

I completely agree that we need to protect the whole biosphere, so please s/crops/biosphere, that was my bad.

At this point, sadly, geoengineering may be a necessary part of protecting it. We're on the verge of positive feedbacks that could take things out of our hands, as the planet starts emitting vast amounts of greenhouse gases with no more help from us. If all we do is stop emissions, there's a good chance that we'll cross that tipping point before we're done. It's possible that we've already crossed it.

Flag? Really... that's mean :-) but here goes I'll try to answer your questions/concerns and those of 0xfff2 in one go "You mean, nobody work for a year?" Yes, to the extent they want to do something why not look at it and see if it's usefull, helpful, or just using their time and polluting the environment? Once the obligation to go to work goes away, habits, needs, wants, perspective change

"Everyone in a nursing home would be dead after a few days," this statement I don't understand, I've been in EMS's as the french speakers call them.... and beyond having a high cost, many of those old people could be adequately cared for at home...or use a helper occasionally in a much more efficient/economical manner

"No food would be planted or harvested, so even when the truckers and supermarket workers began to work again the starvation would not end" Figures say ...? 6% of imports are food and beverages..., when people have time they cook, so use of basic foodstuffs would go up, that of expensive, overly packaged foodstuffs (dissapear) one would hope, I answered this question inasmuch as pointing out food in general is cheap... Switzerland is currently sitting on a huge amount of wealth that is stuck in real estate, pressure for an appreciating CHf (on which they are using debt to counter more than 2k per Swiss person)

"no one is staffing the supermarkets, no one is driving trucks to deliver food to supermarkets, no one is farming at commercial scale" Open markets are a thing, self driving trucks too, automatic check outs ...vending machines...as for commercial farming it's gotten out of hand... I studied horticulture and personally avoid supermarket food in Switzerland, it's tastless, expensive and in many cases over packaged... come to Eastern Europe...for flavour,

If people were to have more free time, don't you think, the great outside , gardening, cooking and sharing good food would be one of their préoccupations?

A simple google search turns up

"It has one of the highest sucide rates in Europe, in 2014, 1,029 people committed non-assisted suicide (754 men, 275 women), for a rate of 12.5 per 100,000 (18.5 male, 6.6 female). Not included are 742 assisted suicides (320 men, 422 women); most of the assisted suicides concerned elderly people suffering from a terminal disease."

Tldr I understand the misgivings my "naive" statements produce, but plead for people to open their minds to other potential lifestyles that could really help combat CC...

1000ppm is quite normal indoors. My office is 800ppm right now.

It will take probably 100 years to get to 1000ppm.