Maybe humans evolved over the last 8mln years to nowadays excessive Carbon consuming society. Carbon may have started to form its aggregates typically used by our civilization for even 40 times longer. Chances are, there might be even more reserves, yet undiscovered! Perhaps more expensive to explore or access. No matter what, but over the last 50 years Carbon consumption eleven-folded while population just doubled. Since humans have developed the habit of disposing Carbon into the atmosphere just after every one-time use as if it were a throw-away item, disposal levels have reached 160% of photosynthetic biosphere and maritime absorption capacities. Carbon representing 57% of all resource consumptions today is currently used six times the rate of iron-ore representing almost 95% of all metal used per year.

Recycling Carbon under the same rational like being done with many lower usage volume commodities for multiple use may only have turned technically feasible and economic over the last decade. But doing so going forward from now on would follow the same rational like recycling of paper: It reduces the number of new trees needing to be cut fabricating new paper and is more economic financially and energy wise. At Carbotopia™ state of art the same would apply to Carbon Recycling at crude oil prices above U$ 30 per barrel, saving more than 12 barrels per tonne of recycled Carbon costing about U$ 0.30 -.40 per kg at scale. Interestingly these aspects only trigger ordinary people’s interest. Those in charge of handling Carbon as a resource better don’t seem to want to know. Which brings up the question of who’s negligence it will be considered one day.

Fact is that our societies today are charged all the uncovered cost overruns of this lavishness making it a greatly profitable business to the suppliers. On top it became politically fashionable to impose abatement cost on top reasoning that such penalties would entice consumers to incrementally improve usage efficiencies, making the single-use of Carbon a good business also for the Internal Revenue Services. This may sound very environmentally conscious but does not represent stewardship for our paleoecology. Of course regimes doing nothing and therefore allowing their waters and air getting poisoned plus extreme weather events’ frequency and destructiveness increasing also let things go to the burden of their citizens. In both cases all associated financial sacrifices burden people’s free disposable incomes to drive local economies.

Talking about the Anthropocene one of course could argue that all these cost may be seen analogous to people renting their grove already at lifetime. For environmentalists calling to save the planet I always have good news: The Anthropocene will of course be succeeded by another geologic age – the planet will always survive! It existed for billions of years without humans and won’t have a problem to do it again. Therefore the duration of the Anthropocene will primarily depend on how well we assume stewardship for our anthroposphere! Or better, how swiftly some B2C market powers liberate their clientele’s purchasing power by engaging in changing the rules of the Carbon game. In view of the exigence there maybe no more remunerative field for Corporate Social Responsibility initiatives than joining interests with the people bringing them free disposable income for day-to-day carry homes by supporting market penetration of measures for a sustainable Anthropocene.