Oh, yeah, nuking everything of coure would stop CO
2...
Plants may be a helping force against CO
2, but they also start releasing everything they've built up when they die. That's why logging areas tend to have a large amount of CO2 release.
There are plenty of technologies that can help reduce CO2, but for political, cultural, and financial reasons, implementing them may be difficult. So in order to make some actual changes, technology definitely helps, but human habits need to change. That may sound cliche, but doesn't it seem like people are less willing to change than they are able to? I suppose there is a natural fear of change for we would have to adapt. Adaptation is usually forced upon a living-thing when its surroundings change. When surroundings change around a living-thing, the thing does not know whether it can ultimately survive or not, but still adapts to what it can in hopes of doing so. However, that trend tends to be for ANIMALS. As Humans, we are able and are making our own surroundings. We can make things to our comfort given the blockade set upon ourselves allows us to (cultural, political, financial, etc.), meaning we can change even without the incentive of surviving. But the changes we make tend to benefit ourselves and make the rest of the surroundings either no better off or even worse.
Therefore, I THINK, we need to educate. Educate not as in just send more people to school. Teaching positions needs to be more prestigious pay-wise. Teachers for most of the world if not all, are greatly underpaid and seems to be that people who are still teaching below college level are those who either would rather not look for another career, or those who simply love the fact that they're making changes to the world by educating students. Of course, a bigger paycheck would also require a more strict qualification. A more strict system towards employment of teachers would give a small-scale survival of the fittest. Those who aspire to be teachers, along from their own inspirations, would also have a decent pay as an incentive. Since some countries pay teachers through the government, such as the United States, then there needs to be such a change in the political sense.
Education is important because we need to understand that WE, as HUMANS, are causing the reasons we need to adapt. However, one may argue that we caused what we have in order to survive... better! But may we remind ourselves we don't exactly need automatic dishwashers in homes. We also do not need a car for each of the 16, 17, and 18 year old or run the computer while we watch TV and play handhelds. Of course, we want our lives to be as comfortable and entertaining as possible, but with education, and appreciation of nature we may be able to gain the same if not greater satisfaction without abusing the priviligious(sp) of technology. This change would be toward the cutural sense.
Of course, money is always an issue. But need it be such a large issue? Need we pay our sportsplayers more than the amount squared of our, say, recycle sorting worker? The sportsplayer is great at what he does because he or she tends to spend hours perfecting a skill. Does a recycle worker not sort trash on 12 hour shifts daily? There is much to go on finance, but I haven't the time...
My friends and I do not throw our trash in certain facilities on the ground even though we know it's someone else's job to pick it up. Trash is not defined as nuclear waste. The small strip of paper from a straw you've rolled up and released to drop is also trash. Why don't we? Not because we feel like heroes. But why not make someone's job easier? Look around you when you go out. How many people do you see making others' jobs easier? Does the obese woman pick up the hanging toys that fell when she brushed against it? Do the teenagers at McDonald's throw the trash on their trays away and return the trays to their designated areas?
So, would you like to make someone's job easier? How about mother nature? How? There are so many ways an individual can help, the hardest thing is not finding the time or money, but how one wants to help. Recycling (or better yet, reuse), taking public transportation, biking, conservation in energy in general--the methods one can help only stops when one stops counting. Remember, however, that just because you conserved in one area does not at all mean you should waste energy elsewhere. Doesn't this sound like saving money? Save where you can, spend where you have to. Do a global favor, save for the planet.
To talk about a technology, though, I especially like one. I forgot what it's called, but it's nano technology, upon pressure, it generates a small electrical charge. A simple breeze in the wind is enough to generate power for your ipod. While I do not know much else about this technology, such as costs, material, maintenance, developement, etc., but I do know that many countries are looking for ways to implement that into their everyday life. For instance, France has considered to cover some of their buildings with said technology, allowing natural occurrences such as rain and wind to help generate power.
None.