I’m glad we agree there is a problem. Although a mere “billion” trees is well short of the scale of the solution.
Solving CO2 with carbon offsetting is part of the general model of “carbon credits“ and “carbon trading”, which can only work with a government-and-trade-agreement-mandated minimum carbon price.
That’s fine by me. Anything is, so long as it works and works “soon-ish” rather than “eventually”.
I am optimistic about the technology, I am pessimistic about the politics.
> Has IQ been going down due to that? Is that theoretical?
It is directly measurable in situations where CO2 is higher than wilderness levels. The study I’ve seen had three specific tested CO2 concentrations, which were roughly comparable to various modern-life scenarios such as city center offices or wearing full-face motorcycle helmets.
> Seems like improper breathing is a larger issue, and people in cities with worst local air have higher IQs than those in rural areas. Seems at best a non factor.
The CO2 level inside cities are indeed higher. As are the CO2 level inside sealed offices inside a city. These higher levels have a demonstrable, repeatably testable, negative impact on reasoning skills.
I have seen no prior claim of correlation between location and IQ, however I have seen a claim that city dwellers walk faster which turned out to be because cities attract young, skilled, ambitious people. Therefore, you would need to show causation not just correlation — especially as there are repeated demonstrations that CO2 impairs cognitive function, and that’s hardly the only pollutant one should expect to be more common in a city.
Note that burning all the known carbon fuel reserves would raise CO2 levels in the wilderness to higher levels than currently found in city center offices whose windows have been closed all week.
Also note that resource consumption has historically been exponential, so this is a larger problem going forward than you might expect looking backwards.