you are amazingly naive about Climate change and its remediation. For your information GW has been the basis of founding entirely new an quite successful technologies and businesses worldwide. We (the, US) are amazingly dumbat applying them motly becaue we attach obriquets lik you are doing to somehow draw suspicion ovr anything novel. Its either socialist (your definitions are fucke up may I say, Democratic socialist states are quite common and working just fin ithout your "belief")
I'm not 'drawing suspicion to anything novel.' I just analyze how the technologies can be applied in more and less sustainable ways.
Solar panels, for example, can be deployed in a sustainable way, but not if they are put on the ground and prevent other kinds of carboniferous ground-cover, such as trees or crops from growing. If you have acres of solar farm next to acres of crops, for example, then you've displace trees whose wood is the densest form of carbon. If, on the other hand, you put the solar panels on raised platforms high enough for crops/orchard/forest to grow under them, you have increased the amount of land that can be reforested.
You can look at development and infrastructure the same way. I.e. if you clear and pave/build foundations and roads that are wide, you can grow far less trees on that land than if you design the buildings and roads with narrow footprints and leave trees growing between them. It's just a question of smart integration of trees within developments and road/highway corridors.
As far as climate control, we will need the application of many many technologies , some of which havent been discovered yet. Sequestration by uses of novel mineral application is but one way to HELP.(Its never eiither or).... (Kinda like your preaching that planting trees seems to be the only method in your mind for dealing with all the climate active gases such as CH4, C2H6, etc etc).There are whole blocks of the earth that are prairies, desertified or savannahs , that are populated by grasses, not trees, (ever since the early Pliocene) most trees wont grow due to rainfall deficits, soil conditions or other climate effects.
Obviously you can't plant and/or preserve trees where they don't grow. My point with trees is that wood is dense. When you have a large-canopy hardwood tree, there is a lot of carbon condensed into the wood and roots of that tree, far more than if the same piece of land would be covered with grass, crops, or even bushes. So it just makes sense to let trees grow wherever they can, because that is how the planet evolved to absorb CO2 out of the atmosphere naturally.
Reforstation is good, I believe in it, just not alone and mindlessly applied.
What I'm trying to explain is that there's not enough awareness that reforestation can happen as part of development and infrastructure, not just on rural land. It has to do with how developed parcels of land are redeveloped when their time has come. How often do you see an old building demolished and a new one put in its place without reforesting the parcel at the same time? Reforesting developed land and corridors requires designing narrower-footprint structures/foundations with room for full-canopy trees between them.
If you ever get a chance to look at photos of the US Appalachian region from the early 1900's, you can see entire mountain chains (like the smokies or the Moosics or the WHite an Green mts).They were TOTLLY denuded of trees. Today those areas are denser forests than during th pre colonial period.
Yes, that's good but if we achieve architectural designs that allow similar reforestation of developed areas without displacing humans, then human development and its spread/expansion will no longer pose a threat to climate.
Whats wrong with technologies other than just reforestation alone??
It depends on the technology. You can't evaluate the effects, short/long-term and scaled, of technology generally. You have to look at each technology separately. Certainly there are many technologies that can be scalable without being unsustainable over the longest term (i.e. permanently), but identifying those requires being honest about which technologies will become unsustainable over generations/centuries/millennia and how/why.
To much of our business-oriented culture is oriented toward whitewashing (or in this case greenwashing) things because people desire them and/or they make money for businesses.
Thats kind of inane. I see a really booming solar power industry even without govt interference. Also alternative heating and cooling (like GW source heat pumps, I think, if let alone, much of the market will deliver what we need. Govt must assist with reasonable regulations (to avoid whats happened to the clean waters of Pa, W Va, Ohio, Wyoming etc).
Look whats happning with coal it a dying technology bcause of market place pressures, not some wailing douche bag in DC claiming that he will bring "coal back"
The politics get very complex. The bottom line is people have to be able to evaluate the long-term sustainability of a product or technology and then give it up voluntarily if it poses problems long-term. That can be very difficult when the problems aren't going to occur short-term or even medium-term and when there is money to be made and consumer demand to be satisfied.
Stripping the EPA into some toadies , powerless agency in what is actually approaching a fascist state does to clear the way or the industries for its cronies.
There is another problem that comes with government regulation besides what is commonly assumed; and that is that the public falls into passivity where they think everything available for sale has been regulated by the government and is thus 'kosher' for them to use.
In reality, government is manipulated by various business and consumer interests, which allows many things to pass that actually shouldn't pass. E.g. replacing all cars with electric cars and then maintaining the same infrastructure and sprawling cities is not going to achieve climate reform and sustainability, but government will not restrict driving to a relatively small subset of the population because the public would vote them out.
When the government is willing to cater to a majority who isn't on board with fully reforming the economy/society to achieve full sustainability, it doesn't make sense to support regulations that lull them into feeling like the government is doing its job.
If the government doesn't protect future generations from the present majority, it's not doing enough.
Liberty should be enough for people to self-regulate for their own good and the good of future generations, but for it to work, the people have to be willing and able to make personal and business choices that aren't always the most lucrative, easy, or convenient/comfortable. People have to have the strength to make right choices even when it takes extra effort and sacrifice. When they do that, liberty is the best possible form of government because people who truly understand what needs to be done and have the ability to achieve it are more effective than people who are told what to do by managers and only do what they're told because they don't want to be punished.