Require everyone buy a new machine and Windows license.

Be sure to do it from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.

Does that ~250 year estimate for Uranium factor in reprocessing spent fuel from other reactors? Just asking since your don't cite a source I can find out from. I haven't heard an estimate for just Uranium that was that short before

And then there is that little fact that U-235 is not the only fissile fuel available on Earth. Thorium is vastly more abundant than Uranium and is 100% usable as fuel while also producing much shorter lived fission by-products than the Uranium fuel chain.

Also consider that by your own claim just using Uranium would give Humanity 250 years of Carbon zero energy while they get fossil fuels completely replaced and can replace nuclear power with other cleaner renewable sources.

while I agree with your advice to everyone to "chill out" and may have miss read the intent of your post as it is early and I have yet to have any coffee I would like to point out a tiny fact hat you seem to have overlooked

from the summary;

So in this case your claim that

is in this case wrong as the

failed in thier task of guarding the WP ecosystem

The JWST was paid for from public funds for doing pure science.

When I consider that the JWST was able to determine the composition of a distant gas giant class exoplanet's atmosphere and should also be able to detect high concentrations of free Oxygen (a sign of life) in any smaller rocky worlds in a star's "goldilocks zone" as well.

Makes me wonder what NASA et al want to hide. /Tinfoil hat Mode OFF

Maybe I missed it in the article since I only gave it a quick read but I couldn't find any mention of where the energy needed to do all the carbon capturing and processing comes from.

anyone know how they intend to power it?

Better plan would be to plant a fast growing annual or bi-annual crop instead of trees. Main goal is to get as much CO2 out of the air as fast as we can. Trees are great for stable low effort, long term capture but are too slow for current needs

IIRCC The right crop can produce 4 times the biomass per acre per year than the same area planted with trees. Something like Hemp, Jute, or Bamboo that have a high cellulose content would work best. Then convert the cellulose into charcoal using some carbon neutral heat source (some of the biomass, solar furnace, waste heat from a power plant, etc.). Then store the charcoal, make a slurry out of it and pump it into old oil wells or compress it into bricks and drop them into an undersea sub-duction zone or fill an old pit mine.

Pure charcoal is completely neutral so environmental contamination would not be an issue if it is handled correctly.

just how generous of a "gift" the judge received during the trial

the normal light pollution from city lights would make it impossible for residents in well lite areas to actually see the satellites Plus all the buildings that would be in the way.

And finally add in that most people don't actually spend time looking at the stars anymore. Sure some people would go out to the rural areas and look up when these space billboards first go up just to see the novelty but after that the sats would just be more space junk causing problems for Astronomers.

Now all we need to do is stop destroying the remaining forests.

If NASA goes with something like the Hermes from The Martian, an interplanetary ferry built with a planed decade+ operation life, then a short 1 year trip to Venus would make for a great shakedown cruise to make sure everything works before sending it on a three+ year mission to Mars.

My eye's had glazed over by the time I got that far into the report.

Thanks for catching that and the correction.

While the CO2 question has been answered my secondary concern about unintended consequences is still valid. A system that has been thrown out of equilibrium can not achieve a new stable equilibrium if people keep messing with it.

Just my opinion but I feel Humanity's best option is to concentrate on adapting to the changes rather than trying to force the changes from happening i the first place. The Earth's climate is an incredibly complex system and we don't know enough about all the factors that govern the climate. Trying to force it to do what we want is akin to poking a Hornets nest with a stick. You might get away with it once or twice but eventually your going to get stung. A lot.

How much extra CO2 will that fleet of 125 tankers add to the atmosphere in the Arctic zones and contribute to the problem they are supposed to help with?

The real danger of this kind of geo-engineering is that it can end up messing with the Earths natural response to the increased temperatures. The more Humanity tries to control things the more we might end up causing the fluctuation to become even more extreme eventually causing the system to completely collapse.

Yeah, right. Like I am going to give EA kernel level access to any of MY systems.

Not happening.

High Fructose Corn Syrup. has been linked directly to obesity.. Food companies started using it about the same time the "obesity epidemic" started.

tl:dr, three groups of rats, one control getting normal food, one given normal food plus HFCS sweet water, one given normal food plus calorie equivalent Sucrose water. Group getting HFCS packed on the fat, the other two groups didn't change much.

blaming plastics seems like a way of blaming something other than the food industries that give out lots of money to researchers to find out why people are getting fat without blaming the ingredients in the foods people eat.

On a personal note. I started reading the labels on the foods I eat back and now only buy stuff with real cane or beet sugar, plain sucrose. I still drink a lot of sodas and my candy addiction is as strong as ever but I stopped gaining weight and even started loosing some without changing my lifestyle beyond the food,