Are you talking about agriculture?

the ocean already does this for us, the problem is that it's acidifying the ocean water and causing mass extinction of oceanic life.

We don't know anything. I'll bet /sci/ has people working on it at this very second though.

Already exists. You need to use rare metals as catalysts, and it's energy expensive, so it's not widely practiced(if done at all). Look into research on (I believe) Bismuth based catalysts.

>>53403788
Get lots of plants and algae SENPAI. CO2 into o2 quick

>>53403788
We know that during the cretaceous period of co2 levels were much higher, but everything was fine because forests and swamps were everywhere, so no runaway greenhouse effect.

Nowadays, humans remove swamps because they're hostile to human life and deforest hard for profit, especially in places where a huge rainforest needs to exist like the Amazon.

The only other options are weak (massive cattle subsidies to then desert into grasslands) or kind of reckless (harvest algae in the Indian ocean potentially making it toxic).

My stance on climate change is stop looking at carbon emitters, the Chinese (because coal), and start looking at the people hurting the earth's natural recovery mechanisms, the Brazilians. Also, after coal is eliminated, oil isn't nearly as harmful and won't cause nearly as many problems, I doubt we'll ever completely give up fossil fuels because there are few more efficient ways to heat water on a small scale for your baths and dishwashers. Solar is not an option.

>>53403788
>grow plants
>stop cutting forests down
>get filthy 3rd world countries to cut down on factory pollution
>problem reverses itself eventually

Yeah people are working on this already, there is even a monetary prize for the one who does it.

>>53403788
If you're talking about processes that aren't plant or erosion-based, then the answer is: It's generally too energy-intensive.

I've read about some research that pulls CO2 out of the air with sunlight and some catalysts, but they aren't economically viable.

why don't we just send the co2 to the moon?

>>53403788
No. Don't. The Earth is an oscillating system. If you want it to change, best if you stop producing greenhouse gases. The planet will correct itself. Try to fix it artificially and you risk toppling the balance.

>>53403788
>into stuff that is a bit less harmful
Like what?

>>53404406
like diamonds

>>>/sci/
FOR FUCK'S SAKE CHILDREN

>>53403788
This: http://phys.org/news/2016-03-scientists-renewable-plastic-carbon-dioxide.html