[Nubs]

OK, here's an equally wacky but less perverse question. Can anyone think of something that could be mixed into fuels which would have a greenhouse effect that is equal and opposite to the effect of the CO2 released when the fuel is burned, so the net effect of burning the fuel would be "greenhouse neutral?

[vox_mundi]

Burn ammonia. The exhaust is water and nitrogen gas. Make sure you set the parameters so that you avoid NOx.

[dinopello]

OK, here's an equally wacky but less perverse question. Can anyone think of something that could be mixed into fuels which would have a greenhouse effect that is equal and opposite to the effect of the CO2 released when the fuel is burned, so the net effect of burning the fuel would be "greenhouse neutral?

As the one who started the thread, I'd say that there should be a high bar to calling any question wacky. Some of the answers might be wacky though.

The point was to think about the problem in a different way, kind of like you are. But really it seems so far that the vast majority of people think that the most efficient way to warm the planet if we were actually trying to do it - is almost exactly what we are doing anyway. No schemes to increase sun output or make the earth go closer to the sun or big mirrors in space to reflect more radiation to the earth.

As far as adding stuff to counter the effect, I think for a while they were worried that all the soot from burning coal would attenuate the solar radiation and cool the planet, but then they started cleaning all the soot from the stack exhaust so now we just get the greenhouse gases without the soot to counter the effect - so there is that.

[Nubs]

Dino: I din't mean wacky in a bad way. Maybe quirky would be beter.