The carbon cycle is a massive over simplification of how the ecosystem works though. Nature isn't that simple and we are fooling ourselves thinking that we can boil it all down to one simple lever.
Beyond that, energy consumption just can't grow indefinitely without having a negative impact on carbon, if that's your primary concern. Not only would the entire energy infrastructure have to be carbon neutral, everything we use that energy for would have to be carbon neutral as well.
Let's say that is even possible, if all that matters is the carbon cycle are we totally fine with cutting down every forest on the planet as long as we find a different way to sequester carbon?
I'm well aware that scenario takes it to am extreme, but we have to play it out that far to see if the core principle is right. We need to use less energy and consume fewer resources, we can't get around that fact by moving around carbon in computer models and mathematical equations.
Beyond that, energy consumption just can't grow indefinitely without having a negative impact on carbon, if that's your primary concern. Not only would the entire energy infrastructure have to be carbon neutral, everything we use that energy for would have to be carbon neutral as well.
Let's say that is even possible, if all that matters is the carbon cycle are we totally fine with cutting down every forest on the planet as long as we find a different way to sequester carbon?
I'm well aware that scenario takes it to am extreme, but we have to play it out that far to see if the core principle is right. We need to use less energy and consume fewer resources, we can't get around that fact by moving around carbon in computer models and mathematical equations.