Plant life also helps to reduce humanity's carbon footprint, sucking up about 25 percent of our carbon emissions to produce fuel for itself during photosynthesis. The only problem is, nature's system for doing this is pretty slow and inefficient, but what if it could be boosted? When plants absorb carbon during what's known as the Calvin cycle – the second stage of photosynthesis – an enzyme called RuBisCO helps catalyse the reaction that turns CO2 into glucose, which plants use as an energy source.
We should help reduce CO2 emissions by boosting absorption, but only of there is some kind of cost - benefit analysis done and the cost does not outweigh the benefit. Too much of the climate change debate hinges on doing anything, everything, to reduce CO2 while completely disregarding the costs involved. That is a big problem, considering the science is still unsettled. Let's not change our way of life at a high cost when we don't even have the science settled.
I strongly believe that we should help reduce CO2 emissions by boosting absorption. This is because CO2 is very dangerous to our environment. If CO2 is abundant in the air, it will combine with O2 to form carbon-monoxide which is a very dangerous gas. We should therefore adapt the scientists way to absorb CO2 more quickly.
Yes, it seems like a good idea to boost absorption of CO2 in order to reduce the affect on our environment. If scientists have tested the theory and believe it to be a safe process, then we should try it. At this point, the environmental emergency requires us to try anything we can.