Quick apology for the Zillionth and one thread on Global Warming.

A thread was launched in Chemistry about Co2 removal, and READ ONLY provided what I thought to be an excellent idea, that deserves to be heard in a environmental forum. His idea was that Algae was a good idea for removing co2, and I'm kinda arguing his point.

I am NOT DEBATING WHETHER OR NOT GLOBAL WARMING IS A CRISIS, as there is OTHER (FOOD/FUEL) very applicable reasons to engage in this form of Farming.

The "SEAWEED SOLUTION"

Algae currently provides over 70% of the worlds oxygen, it is simple to grow and essentially only needs latch on points in order to thrive in the oceans.

with simple anchor points we could establish floats. I am thinking baseball size plastic floats with 2 ten foot connecting wires (or substitute). We then connect these wires in an ever expanding framework regarding shipping lanes etc. Probably to maximum sizes of 100 miles by 100 miles. Warning beacons could broadcast from the borders.

The main reason corn is considered a better choice for energy, is the lack of seaweed farms available.

These farms would all convert co2 into oxygen, and they could be routinely towed to shore and harvested for food AND Fuel (forget global warming for a second.)

Every industry producing Co2 should be required to add to these structures in amounts at least equal to their co2 output.

Aside from hundreds of thousands (eventual goal) of square miles of oxygen farms, we would also have crop values in the form of

Food/Fuel/Paper/Clothing/fertilizer/increased fish population,

Positives.
- The real estate value of the oceans is NILL.
- Construction costs per square mile would be negligable.
- Oxygen farms could help prevent or slow down Global warming (IF IT IS A THREAT, I AM NOT SAYING THAT IT IS).
- CO2 sequestration would not be necessary
- Fish populations would improve.
- Possible uses as Hurricane inhibitor ???? (not thought out, idea is insulating problem areas of the ocean against sunlight, might hinder hurricane build-up. This is crazy that I'd even include this idea as it is "woo-woo", please go easy if quoting about this.)
- Shipping lanes are mostly established and lighthouse type frequency emitters could warn ships, not that they'd sink if they collided with one, but...
- It is a semi-NATURAL solution
- The farms could be towed to shore for harvesting in whichever country we choose, for food. For agricultural aid, a navy ship could tow a few farms to whichever countries need the aid.
-the farms could be towed to shore for harvesting in whichever country we choose for OIL. The main drawback for Algae as use for fuel is the lack of harvesting available. Corn however is already being grown and is a more viable option at this time.
- The SEAWEED pulp could be used in production of paper.
- The SEAWEED could be used to make clothes.
- voters would get a bang for their buck.

Negatives.
- Why should we pay for clean air for every other country? although crop values could offset this argument.
- Possible disruptions of natural ecosystems under the ocean.i,e, whales trying to surface,etc. The "wires" used should be easily detached so they do not form a net.
- The low impact it would have as a pilot project. It would take years to develope structures capable of removing significant amounts of co2. We would litterally need hundreds of Farms say 100 miles by 100 miles
each. before we could start "breathing easy"
-possible hindrance to shipping lanes

It seems viable, I am sure as technology ensues we will have more efficient scientific methods of reducing our co2 outputs, and sequestration, but the seaweed solution seems like a logical start.

Save the world, grow food, remove co2 from the air, remove co2 from the air, and remove co2 from the air.

??? Any thoughts, and please look at the OTHER benefits before ANY tyraids about GLOBAL WARMING. Our oceans are the logical choice for farming foods/fuel/clothing, etc in our growing world.

That kind of assumes there isn't any plant life in the oceans now, but there is.

Yes, but seaweed is limited in growth to shallower areas, I am talking about creating artificial shallow areas in the middle of the oceans. I am talking about areas so deep that the sunlight cannot reach bottom, and also a form of growing that could be easily moved and harvested.

Yes, but seaweed is limited in growth to shallower areas, I am talking about creating artificial shallow areas in the middle of the oceans. I am talking about areas so deep that the sunlight cannot reach bottom, and also a form of growing that could be easily moved and harvested.

I think that's a pretty good idea. As a sea-captain I have seen many artificial habitats in the deep ocean created by man-made detritus. A floating crate, sheet of plywood, or ship's container quickly becomes a habitat like you are describing.

I just wonder what sort of scale you would need to make a noticeable difference, and whether or not something that size would withstand ocean storms. Flotsam survives because it is small and not anchored down. In order to keep your artificial habitats in the deep ocean, they would need to be anchored, which would be difficult to do permanently.

Definitely something interesting to think about.

Yes, I am thinking in terms of moveable floating "habitats", although I'm thinking sea-captains of the future will dread the odd "lost" habitats. I have also just learned that the Japanese have already started such projects, for much the same reasons.

How about a simple solution. Instead of cutting down trees to make lawns whose total leaf surface area for photosynthesis is much smaller than tall trees with a lot of braod leaves, let us plant the trees. Those who do not, pay a lawn tax including millions of golf courses?

Build more nuclear power plants to get rid of the thermal plants and spend the money for hot fusion to phase out the nuclear plants in 50 years. One does not even have to get rid of the generator sets.

The entire Namibia desert is empty...put a lot of solar power generators....

To get the tonnage required for those applications, you'd probably have to fertilize.

And treat with poisons to kill grazers.

Winds and waves get pretty serious.

You might have better luck raising salt water algae in the many ocean side deserts, in large artificial ponds fed from the ocean.

How about a simple solution. Instead of cutting down trees to make lawns whose total leaf surface area for photosynthesis is much smaller than tall trees with a lot of braod leaves, let us plant the trees. Those who do not, pay a lawn tax including millions of golf courses?

Build more nuclear power plants to get rid of the thermal plants and spend the money for hot fusion to phase out the nuclear plants in 50 years. One does not even have to get rid of the generator sets.

The entire Namibia desert is empty...put a lot of solar power generators....

Trees aren't the answer because they grow and eventually die releasing the CO2 they've caught. It takes a long time, of course, but the eventual net gain is zero. You can compare them to a warehouse where you send in CO2 through the front door and start taking it out the back 60 or 80 years later at exactly the same rate it goes in the front.

Your other two suggestions are quite good! I still strongly maintain that the only real solution to meet our energy needs is nuclear. I'm aware that many people are still distrustful of it but there have been some serious advances in design made since the last plant was built in the US. And France, for example, gets nearly 80% of it's power from nuclear plants - and without ANY problems at all.

brilliant.

-MT

Trees aren't the answer because they grow and eventually die releasing the CO2 they've caught. It takes a long time, of course, but the eventual net gain is zero. You can compare them to a warehouse where you send in CO2 through the front door and start taking it out the back 60 or 80 years later at exactly the same rate it goes in the front.



I think, you missed the time element in to your claculation. Say, in a life time, the tree takes in 100 Billion mols of CO2 and releases 100 Billion mols of O2. Are you saying that the tree at the time of death farts another 100 Billion mols of CO2 while dying?

That is some tree!

Photosynthesis uses energy of light to make the sugar called glucose. A general equation for photosynthesis is:

6 CO2(gas) + 12 H2O(liquid) + photons → C6H12O6(aqueous) + 6 O2(gas) + 6 H2O(liquid)
carbon dioxide + water + light energy → glucose + oxygen + water

And France, for example, gets nearly 80% of it's power from nuclear plants - and without ANY problems at all. Uranium is a non-renewable resource. And France, like the rest of us, has a large and growing problem of security, waste storage, and decommissioning, that it has little idea how to solve.

One of the oddly overlooked possibilities is solar heat engine power - Stirling cycle modifications usually, but basically simple. A few square miles of Arizona desert could power the US right now. The concentration on photovoltaics is difficult to understand, in the context of large scale power production to replace, say, coal.

I think, you missed the time element in to your claculation. Say, in a life time, the tree takes in 100 Billion mols of CO2 and releases 100 Billion mols of O2. Are you saying that the tree at the time of death farts another 100 Billion mols of CO2 while dying?

That is some tree!

Photosynthesis uses energy of light to make the sugar called glucose. A general equation for photosynthesis is:

6 CO2(gas) + 12 H2O(liquid) + photons → C6H12O6(aqueous) + 6 O2(gas) + 6 H2O(liquid)
carbon dioxide + water + light energy → glucose + oxygen + water

No, not at all. I realize that the tree makes a considerable contribution in the CO2/O2 exchange through photosynthesis while living. I'm simply addressing the point that what it stores structurally is eventually re-released and not permanately removed from the cycle.

But keep in mind that the majority of our oxygen supply comes from aquatic vegative life - around 80% - and of the remaining 20%, well over half of that comes from grasses. So, in the end, trees contribute less than 10% - not very significant by comparision.

Uranium is a non-renewable resource. And France, like the rest of us, has a large and growing problem of security, waste storage, and decommissioning, that it has little idea how to solve.

One of the oddly overlooked possibilities is solar heat engine power - Stirling cycle modifications usually, but basically simple. A few square miles of Arizona desert could power the US right now. The concentration on photovoltaics is difficult to understand, in the context of large scale power production to replace, say, coal.

That's not totally accurate if you consider the contribution that could be made if the restriction on breeder reactors was lifted. And I also believe that fusion will come on-line in the next 50-70 years. The amount of waste generated by fission during that time could be dealt with, especially if decent funding was applied to the problem. In the past 5 decades even calling the amount spent on research for that trivial would almost be an overstatement. It's all been spent on developing storage techniques.

I believe your math may be a bit too consertivate - it would probably take considerably more than a "few square miles."

But keep in mind that the majority of our oxygen supply comes from aquatic vegative life - around 80% - and of the remaining 20%, well over half of that comes from grasses. So, in the end, trees contribute less than 10% - not very significant by comparision.

If you are right, you have a point here. I googled but could not find the mass balance on trees that is how much is out there and what they produce. If they are pretty much insignificant, why the tree huggers have their panties in knotts?

Looks like cutting down the trees would not make much differece though I saw in the Planet Earth documentary showing tall trees and saying 80% of the oxygen comes from these trees. Who to believe.

Assuming trees are insignificat and we are producing a lot of CO2, should not the marine planktons get bigger and bigger? And if we can genetically modify them to boost their lung size (the cells) to take on more...we should be in a good shape!

If you are right, you have a point here. I googled but could not find the mass balance on trees that is how much is out there and what they produce. If they are pretty much insignificant, why the tree huggers have their panties in knotts?

Looks like cutting down the trees would not make much differece though I saw in the Planet Earth documentary showing tall trees and saying 80% of the oxygen comes from these trees. Who to believe.

Assuming trees are insignificat and we are producing a lot of CO2, should not the marine planktons get bigger and bigger? And if we can genetically modify them to boost their lung size (the cells) to take on more...we should be in a good shape!



Yes, there's a fair amount of disagreement over the numbers. There's NO doubt that trees make a contribution, but exactly how much is up in the air. (No pun intended.) ;) And incidentally, though I'm not a "tree hugger" I do have a great appreciation for trees. My home is surrounded by them - six acres of them on my own property, too.

The aquatic life we're talking about are plants, they don't have lungs. But we certainly could do some things to increase their growth/reproduction rate through genetic engineering. Just don't forget, as I mentioned to Billy T, that most types of algae can double (and in the specific case of the one I linked him to, quadruple) their mass in just a matter of mere hours! That's already pretty impressive!!!

The three factors that limit their growth are, of course, amount of CO2 dissolved in the water, sunshine and chemical nutrients. And the first is THE big limiter. CO2, like all gasses, dissolves quicker and in greater quantities in colder water. And plant growth does better in warmer water. But even in the warmer water it can be enhanced considerably by just a small amount of agitation or direct aeration.

The blue-green algae have all the nutrients they can possibly use. There's plenty of phosphate salts in sea water, a fair amount of nitrogen salts PLUS the fact that they can fix their own nitrogen just like legumes (peas, clover, etc.) do. All they really need is sunlight and more dissolved CO2.

If we pump and diffuse CO2 to seawater from seacost plants, would that hurt the marine life while improving algae groth...may be surface diffusion?

If we pump and diffuse CO2 to seawater from seacost plants, would that hurt the marine life while improving algae groth...may be surface diffusion?

No, it wouldn't be harmful in any way, provided there's enough mixing action going on.

I need to point out that there have been fish kills as a result of what's called "algal blooms." But in those cases it wasn't due to a direct increase in dissolved CO2 but rather a depletion of dissolved oxygen at night when none was being produced by the algae. In the setting you're describing, that could easily be avoided by proper timing of harvesting.

This seems like a good idea, but so did introducing cane toads into Australia. I'm wondering if we know enough about ocean ecosystems to be sure whether this won't have huge adverse effects (or at least effects comparable to unchecked global warming)?.

Might it be possible that our algae farms become too successful and remove too much CO2 from the atmosphere, cooling Earth (below natural levels) instead? Attempts to remove the algae farms may be hard because people could grow dependent on them for food.

Also, what food products can be made from reprocessed algae?

I believe your math may be a bit too consertivate - it would probably take considerably more than a "few square miles." Yeah, a back of the envelope calculation, assuming average total power demand in the US (gas, oil, coal, electrical, everything) rises to about 4 terawatts by the time this thing is on line, we'd need at least 3000 square miles, or a patch of desert with dependably clear skies about 50 X 60 miles, to meet it.

Cutting efficiency in half and doubling the area to cover downtime, night demand, etc, and adding an arbitrary overhead of 25%, we'd need a patch of desert (or several totaling to) 400 miles on a side, completely devoted to power accumulation reflectors etc.

That sounds big. But it replaces every dam, every filling station, most of the coal infrastructure, pollution, and mining damage, every nuke, the whole shebang. If people supplant this with their own stations, for independence or economy, and if a few conservation principles are actually applied, less than that.
And I also believe that fusion will come on-line in the next 50-70 years. We can't handle the waste we've already made. And all these plants have to be decommissioned yet, eventually. Betting on fusion to bail this out is like planning to win the lottery to finance one's retirement. It could happen.

...One of the oddly overlooked possibilities is solar heat engine power - Stirling cycle modifications usually, but basically simple. A few square miles of Arizona desert could power the US right now. The concentration on photovoltaics is difficult to understand, in the context of large scale power production to replace, say, coal.Not quite true, but I have not done the numbers to see how much of Arizona would be required.

There is a fundamental problem with making electricity from solar thermal engine.
The efficiency, E, in conversion of heat to any form of high quality energy, like electricity is limited by the Carnot equation:

E = (Th -Tc)/Th where Th is the temperature of hot input to the engine and Tc is the cold temperature available. BTW, the Sterling engine can be Carnot limited, one of the few that can do that well, but it is rarely as cost effective as other cycles, so seldom used.

The other half of the problem is that some of the energy absorbed by the solar collector (surely in concentrated sunlight if trying to get Th >> Tc) will be reradiated back via the same optical path that let it strike the collector. The net energy collected is thus only a small fraction of the incident energy when Th >> Tc because the re-radiation goes as the fourth power of Th. (absolute temperature scale)

The fact that the re-radiation is in the far IR and the incident sunlight is visible and near IR opens the possibility of inserting a selective filter in the optical path. (I.e. one that transmits the sunlight to the collector, but reflects the escaping IR back to the collector.) This wavelength selective filter is very expensive per square meter. If placed in more concentrated flux (near to the collector) it gets very hot and radiates also; however, this is not the worst problem with placing it near the collector (to keep its area affordable). A sudden local shower (possible even if the sun is fully shining on the system) will crack it.

This selective filter approach to solving the fundamental conflict between Carnot and T^4 radiation loses has been explored several times, always with disappointing results and now essentially well understood as too expensive and impractical.

About 40 years ago, I invented, and patented in US, a new solution to the problem. I do not now have convenient the patent number, but have posted it here several times. The title of my patent is "Mass flow solar energy absorber" or something quite like that. I almost had the had the idea sold to Shell* for big bucks. Their scientists liked the idea a lot. (In one application disclosed in the patent, its high temperature drove the reversible chemical reaction 4SO3 <---> 4SO2 + 2O2 in a closed system. Thus, at night the SO2 was re-oxidized to SO3 so the other troublesome part of solar energy [storage] was also solved.)

I wrote two closely related papers and published them in Applied Optics, but they do not disclose the basic idea, as they patent was still unprocessed. If anyone read both, they might be able to invent the idea also as they discus radiative transfer internal to a tube with walls having an axial temperature gradient.

The basic idea of my invention was that the "absorber" is just the open end hole inside two concentric tubes on the axis of the system. Sunlight enters this hole and is reflected** many times deeper into the straight tubes by a mirror coating on the larger radius of the inner tube surface. (Near the entrance this tube is glass so at each reflection the sunlight passes twice thru the thickness of the inner tube's wall. - Note IR can not "mirror" back out as the sunlight does "going in" as it will not pass thru the glass.)

The cool "working fluid" (perhaps SO3 to be dissociated) flows in the annulus between the two tubes. It also enters at the end where the sunlight does. As both the sunlight and the working fluid travel away from the entrance, the energy not reflected deeper into the concentric tubes is heating the working fluid. Thus, far from the entrance the working fluid is very hot and the concentrated sunlight has been fully absorbed. The interior of the tube, FAR FROM THE ENTRANCE, is filled with intense IR radiation. (The inner tube's glass walls "grade into quartz" to support the temperature. Because of the circular geometer and lack of significant pressure differential and the high strength of nearly "red hot" quartz, a very desirable Th and be achieved and controlled by the flow rate of the working fluid to be constant, even with the natural variation in the intensity of the sunlight. The outer tube can be of any matter and is well insulated externally.) The farther you go along the coaxial tubes from the entrance, the hotter it gets until all the sunlight has been absorbed, but for economical reasons the deep end of the tube terminates in a more conventional absorber. This keeps the total length shorter and reduces both the cost and the thermal losses thru the insulation on the outside of the outer tube.

One of the Applied Optics papers describes mathematically the deposition of the sunlight on the way down the tube. The other describes the re-radiation escaping. (Only a very small fraction can escape directly with no reflection and that not traveling directly back towards the entrance will be reabsorbed in the inter tube's walls.)

Although the patent has long since expired, I still think someday the world may use my invention for clean safe solar power. It, and it alone, can economically achieve the high Th needed for good conversion efficiency and yet avoid the normal re-radiation losses associated with high Th.
--------------------------
*Shell's legal department forced their scientists to stop even exchanging letters with me. - I fell victim to the "not invented here" syndrome, which often causes big companies to not consider inventions from the outside. Back then, energy was very cheap and Shell had lots of oil it wanted to sell - was not very interested in solar energy. I have a knack for being able to see years ahead, correctly, but I was way too far head of the times.

**Ironically, a mirror can achieve 100% absorption and very low re-radiation loses as my Applied Optics papers proved.

I will pass this idea to an engineering company in Africa. Let us see if they can build a prototype....

There is a good reason there is little algae in the open ocean, lack of nutrients. Where there are extensive algae blooms, they deprive fish of oxygen. It would be far simpler to just preserve and protect the forests that exist now.

I will pass this idea to an engineering company in Africa. Let us see if they can build a prototype....I would like that. I note for clarity that the concentric tubes are stationary and a metal 'heliostat" mirror reflects the concentrated sunlight into the tubes. This permits most of the system to be stationary - only the helistat and concentration system track the sun. (I think a large set of slighly curved metal mirrors, each controlled by one computer to direct unconcentrated sunlight into the open end of the stationary tubes, via the heliostat, is the most economical concentrator. Perhaps these mirrors are on a hill side to avoid mutual shaddowing and the mass flow absorber tube is at a lower level. The helistat is very near the entrance and may be a "pre heater" for the working fluid. I did not expend much effort on the optics, as that was not my contribution.)

Both SO3 and SO2 are easy to liquefy for storage, but of course the hot SO2 coming from the absorber is immediately used for its heat content. It, (along with the hot O2) can drive some chemical process in a counter flow heat exchanger or be expanded (and cooled) in a turbine or other engine. The storage of the oxygen in a closed system, even after it is cooled to usefully extract its heat is more of an economical problem. Perhaps once the SO3 and SO2 have been liquefied for storage, the system is more economical with sale of the oxygen (rather than storage) and burning the SO2 back to SO3 with oxygen from the air. - I.e. a partially open system - but that would have its problems also. Alternatively, there could be a phase-change, isothermal-salt-storage system for power generation at night. - I did not go deeply into these economic aspects. There is also the obvious possibility of not making storage within the system - I.e. make power when you can and use it to pump water up a hill etc or integrate with a dam so the solar power, when available conserves water on the high side of the dam, which may be a thousand miles away.

If forced to guess, I would bet the most economical approach is to forget about separtion of the O2 from the SO2 produced but simply expand them in a low pressure turbine. As they cool, the back reaction to SO3 is like a fuel in the turbine. I.e. store only a little SO3 in a closed system.

Also note that the working fluid need not be dissociated, only heated and run thru a turbine - that is use stable gas as the working fluid, whatever makes the turbine cheapest. (Helium or Argone, or Nitrogen?)

I really have no special gift to decide these questions. By solving the fundamental physics problem limiting thermal solar conversion to electric power, I think I may have made a very significant contribution to man's long term energy needs, especially if fusion is never economically attractive. (I expect that to be the case, even if it can someday be made to provide net power.)

lets forget global warming for once. what about global polution. The thought just crossed my mind that we dump all our fecal matter in the oceans, and all our drinking water supply has something to do with sources from the same oceans. Just a thought

lets forget global warming for once. what about global polution. The thought just crossed my mind that we dump all our fecal matter in the oceans, and all our drinking water supply has something to do with sources from the same oceans. Just a thought

If fecal matter is so dangerous, you should not sleep with it. :D

Do you know, how much marine life is in the ocean...their fecal matter will dwarf what humans send out. Besides, it is just bacteria anyway...that does not go up with evaporation which comes down as rain. Humans can not get rid of the bacterias. They are trying in the form of antibiotics that is killing the good bacterias too. Remember, good bacterias (harmless) crowd out bad bacterias. So eat well, and then you have good stuff going out....:)

lets forget global warming for once. what about global polution. The thought just crossed my mind that we dump all our fecal matter in the oceans, and all our drinking water supply has something to do with sources from the same oceans. Just a thought

I've no idea what part of the the world you live in but that certainly is NOT true in the U.S. By law, ours goes to treatment plants and the water that's released from there into streams and rivers has to meet quality standards that are almost as high as drinking water. Yes, there have been emergency releases caused by very heavy rainfall and/or flooding or equipment failure but that's actually pretty rare.

Latest British/German study shows winds over the Antarctic Ocean have increased to such an extent that even bottom currents are disturbing the carbon sequestered in the sediments. The net effect is that the transport of Carbon to the floor (net rate of sequestering it) is 15% LOWER THAN RECENTLY THOUGHT.

Cold water absorbs CO2 more rapidly than warm water so this Antarctic primary path for removing CO2 long term* from the air is disproportionably important. Because the winds are driven by the temperature differences, as Earth warms (relative to still cold Antarctica) these winds will grow stronger still. I.e. this is yet another “positive feed back system.”
--------------------------------
*Even trees remove CO2 from the air less than 100 years on average. (As used here, "long-term" > 10,000 years)

Just make hemp legal, and you can make oil for energy as kinda the same cost as current Oil. And is not damaging to the environment.
Also, biodegradable plastic can be created, cheaper than current plastic, more resistant, and did I say BIODEGRADABLE?

"Hemp oil energy:
Prices were so low, in fact, that no other energy source could compete with it. Then, once they were sure of the lack of competition, the price of oil jumped to almost $40 per barrel over the next 10 years"

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hempseed_oil
http://www.hemp4fuel.com/
http://www.hempcar.org/petvshemp.shtml
http://www.hempcar.org/biofacts.shtml
http://jackherer.com/chapter09.html

Replacing food crops with crops for oil isn't practical.

Replacing food crops with crops for oil isn't practical.

Hemp is also a source of food :)

Hemp seeds nutritional info:

Calories/100 g 567
Protein (Nx5.46) 30.6%
Fat 47.2%
Saturated fat 5.2%
Monounsaturated fat 5.8%
Polyunsaturated fat 36.2%
Carbohydrate 10.9%
Oleic 18:1 (Omega-9) 5.8%
Linoleic 18:2 (Omega-6) 27.56%
Linolenic 18:3 (Omega-3) 8.68%
Cholesterol 0.0%
Total dietary fiber 6.0%
Vitamin A (B-Carotene) 4 IU/100 g
Thiamine (Vit B1) 1.38 mg/100 g
Riboflavin (Vit B2) 0.33 mg/100 g
Vitamin B6 0.12 mg/100 g
Vitamin C 1.0 mg/100 g
Vitamin D 2277.5 IU/100 g
Vitamin E 8.96 IU/100 g
Sodium 9.0 mg/100 g
Calcium 74.0 mg/100 g
Iron 4.7 mg/100 g

"And most importantly, cannabis have incredible medicinal attributes, it has been used for medicinal purposes for over 4,800 years.
Cannabis as a medicine was common throughout most of the world in the 1800s. It was used as the primary pain reliever until the invention of aspirin. Modern medical and scientific inquiry began with doctors like O'Shaughnessy and Moreau de Tours, who used it to treat melancholia, migraines, and as a sleeping aid, analgesic and anticonvulsant."

An antiemetic is a drug that is effective against vomiting and nausea.
"Conclusion: 90.4% success for smoked cannabis; 66.7% for oral THC."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hempseed_oil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicinal_cannabis

"Federal Medical Marijuana program that was closed to new patients by President George H. W. Bush."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicinal_cannabis

That makes no difference. While I'm all for the reintroduction of agricultural hemp, it won't help. There is no getting around that you either eat it or use it as fuel. If you eat it, it isn't available as fuel. If you burn it, you have displaced food crops. There isn't enough farmland to do both. Once you factor in that petroleum is vital for the production of chemical fertilizers, the situation becomes even more impractical.

Only problem here is, carbon dioxide is not the cause of global climate change !

Already the microscopic life at the surface of the oceans are dying
fish eggs, phytoplankton etc.... a toxic soup.

By the time a vast problem as big as a disrupted biosphere is identified, of course it is way way way too late ....

The clock is ticking on civilisation, and if you take this forum as an example of opinions, false, informed, just misguided, egotistical or recalcitrant
how long will it take to have the real problem even recognised

then the inertia, the disbelief, the despair, the chaos ... the paralysis

LOL, no hope in hades.

"The Death of Clouds".... what to do is in this book.
omegafour.com

I've no idea what part of the the world you live in but that certainly is NOT true in the U.S. By law, ours goes to treatment plants and the water that's released from there into streams and rivers has to meet quality standards that are almost as high as drinking water. Yes, there have been emergency releases caused by very heavy rainfall and/or flooding or equipment failure but that's actually pretty rare.
I know there are treated, I have even seem the treated material, it looks like crystal clear water. But the question is, are you going to drink that water? :D

Most people downstream do....:D