Noted environmental advocate Jim Hansen, in his testimony before the US House of Representatives this year, said that the "dangerous level of CO2 is at most 450ppm [parts per million], and it is probably less." Hansen added: "Note that I do not specify an exact fraction by which CO2 emissions must be reduced by 2050 or any other date, but we can say that emissions must be reduced to a fraction of their current values."
The current carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere is about 383ppm, having risen 2.6ppm last year. Human carbon dioxide emissions now rise by approximately 3.5 percent per year.
While nature soaks up about half of human carbon dioxide emissions now, that is expected to drop to 30 percent by 2030. In other words, a growing and developing world population has less than 20 years before the carbon dioxide level reaches 450 ppm.
However, using a more accurate measurement of carbon dioxide equivalent will show that the total of all greenhouse gases (GHG) in the air is 459ppm -- meaning, we've already passed the 450ppm mark.
To lower the chance of global warming by half, global GHG emissions must be cut 80 percent by 2050.
As developing nations continue to increase their GHG emissions per capita, it's only fair that they have to cut their emissions by more than 90 percent per capita. In other words, by 2050 Americans will have to cut their GHG emissions by more than 90 percent from this year's levels.
To lower the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere, we either have to decrease our carbon dioxide emissions dramatically, or find a solution to improve nature's ability to lower carbon dioxide levels in the air.
Since worldwide demand for electricity is expected to double by around 2030 and coal-fired power plants account for about 30 percent of the supply, it is hard to see how carbon dioxide emissions can be reduced in a short time.
These carbon dioxide emission figures do not even include other factors, like increased natural emissions from carbon sinks that become carbon emitters when the earth continues to warm, increased growth of fossil fuel powered transportation, increased agricultural GHG emissions, or even decreased global dimming if emissions decrease.
Nature partially takes carbon dioxide out of the environment with plants that convert it into carbohydrates, and animals that convert it into tissue, bone and shell. Both are examples of autotrophs, which produce their own organic compounds using carbon dioxide from the air or water in which they live.
To do this they require an external source of energy, and almost all autotrophs use solar radiation to provide this.
The GHG can re-enter the atmosphere through decay or combustion. In fact, the carbon dioxide level in the air naturally fluctuates by about 6ppm per year as biomass grows and then shrinks with the seasons.
Because of a bias against releasing genetically engineered organisms into the environment, removing carbon dioxide from the air with naturally evolved autotrophs would be best.
The autotrophs that remove the most carbon dioxide from the environment are trees on land and phytoplankton in the ocean. Yet, neither removes the carbon dioxide for long before they die and release carbon dioxide back into the air through decay.
An expanding human population also places land use for reforestation at a premium, while decaying phytoplankton depletes oxygen in the ocean, leading to dead zones and the production of hydrogen sulfide by bacteria.
The Earth's biosphere evolved to regulate the carbon cycle in an equilibrium that is conducive to life. This cycle has gone out of equilibrium many times in the past, causing carbon sinks to turn into carbon emitters. Mankind's transfer of carbon from the geosphere to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels has drastically upset the equilibrium of the carbon cycle.
As Hansen has said, "Humans are now in control of the global climate, for better or worse."
Engineering a biological solution to remove carbon dioxide in the air is quite simple.
We start with a biological template, modify it to fill an environmental niche and to remove the carbon from the atmosphere back into the biosphere long term.
Using recombinant DNA technology, we can add new traits by the modification of an organism's genes.
This is like cross breeding, but faster and more precise.
For instance, choosing a jellyfish as a biological template (because the ocean has a large niche and the jellyfish is tolerant of acidic water), we could insert a gene that stimulates the jellyfish tissue remove both oxygen molecules from carbon dioxide, and the grain of carbon will drift to the bottom of the ocean.
In other words, since mankind probably won't be able to cut its greenhouse gas emissions fast enough to prevent global warming, removing carbon dioxide from the air is the only solution.
There are several methods of mechanically extracting and separating carbon dioxide, but they all require a large amount of energy and are problematic to produce on a large scale.
On the other hand, there are several biological methods nature uses to extract carbon dioxide from the air, and separate it.
Howver, our Industrial Revolution mindset is biased against biological solutions because of a fear of unintended consequences.
One last factor that isn't being properly considered is abrupt climate change. The current climate models are programmed to predict gradual linear climate change with an increase in GHG.
Instead, paleoclimate data suggests abrupt climate change is common. Frankly, I think assuming only gradual linear climate change by 2050 is wishful thinking.
Generally, when a complex system is forced, it resists change, then abruptly switches to another stable state.
Our climate is currently in a sweetspot called the Holocene, where it is warm enough to prevent the formation of ice sheets on North America or Eurasia, but cool enough to keep ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica.
The Holocene has seen the rise of human civilization, because favorable agricultural conditions have led to the formation of cities, technology and larger populations.
In the next few decades, the jet streams are expected to go further poleward, and the resultant droughts, higher high temperatures and heatwaves will send eco-systems into death spirals.
That will return our climate to a hotter dryer state that has seen massive extinctions many times in the past.
Asking developed countries to cut their carbon dioxide emissions by more than 90 percent by 2050 is an unrealistic goal, but any non-linear abrupt global warming event would make it impossible.
Furthermore, any planned resource intensive geo-engineering projects to mitigate global warming would have to be abandoned for lack of resources.
Brad Arnold
Saint Louis Park, Minnesota
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
As the new year dawns, Taiwan faces a range of external uncertainties that could impact the safety and prosperity of its people and reverberate in its politics. Here are a few key questions that could spill over into Taiwan in the year ahead. WILL THE AI BUBBLE POP? The global AI boom supported Taiwan’s significant economic expansion in 2025. Taiwan’s economy grew over 7 percent and set records for exports, imports, and trade surplus. There is a brewing debate among investors about whether the AI boom will carry forward into 2026. Skeptics warn that AI-led global equity markets are overvalued and overleveraged
RSS