What catastrophic effects when? Why is CO2 removal even a remotely sensible strategy and not an ineffective and costly boondoggle?
Climate alarmists are screaming about a catastrophe. They insist the only way to avoid disaster is to take draconian and disruptive steps to curtail CO2 release. That is just reckless and unwise advice. It is established scientific theory that climate is and has always been changing. At any point in time, the real question is how to adapt to the changes reasonably likely to occur over the next few decades. The objective should be to adapt in the least disruptive and most cost effective ways. Many of the losses we have now from weather events are due more to unwise patterns of human development than any actual change in the severity or frequency of events. So rather than hobble or decimate the industrial infrastructure that gives us the means to adapt, we should move to adapt to a higher sea level and an increase in temperature while also taking modest steps to reduce CO2 release. We can build back from hurricane alley coastlines, build on stilts with more wind-resistant roofs, put utilities on the second floor and not the basement, use flood insurance to discourage development near the shore, promote wetlands, build levees and sea walls (like Holland), increase the extent of sea borne civilization (like Venice). The extra CO2 also helps our plant friends- maybe it can lead to increased crop yields.
We are survivors of an Ice Age that ended not so long ago. We have evolved to use our minds and adapt. We have seen sea levels rise and fall. It is not the end of the world. Adaptation to a wide range of climate is certainly possible for a society like ours that is built for rapid change.