What not to do, unless you like it seriously hot and wet
First of all, you do everything conceivably possible to insure that as much of our world remains in conflict or simply in the dark ages of technology, like when all those witches and books of knowledge were burned along with whomever was in possession of them or, perhaps like how the Pope eliminated those nasty "do-gooder" Cathars and of these days how the Israeli (with the benefit of our space age technology) managed to care for all those thousands of Islamic prisoners from their 6-Day war. Also being certain to always blame every worldly problem on others has worked quite nicely, taking the world of anyone rich enough to get you reelected over the moral majority of others, like as for receiving stolen loot (billions) from those German investors for nearly a decade before actually getting involved with our pretending to care about others being taken advantage of, then continuing to protect those investors for well over another half century past the point of no return (that shouldn't piss anyone off).
Instead of focusing our talents and allowing the talents of others to proceed towards devising upon our advancing affordable solar, wind and nondestructive hydroelectric alternatives (like a good number of other nations seem to be doing), we seem to to be focused in that ourselves as well as any other nation we can influence burns off millions of tonnes worth of petroleum (unless you've got no such access because your country is already bankrupt from the previous round of global inflation, as then you have to burn off everything else in sight, like millions of acres of whatever old growth and/or rain forest occupied by all those endangered animals and irreplaceable flora), otherwise consuming mega tonnes of nasty coal as well as mega cubic meters worth of CNG (compressed natural gas) every year, where at the very least 25% of all that energy is to be consumed just for the prospect of first locating it, then extracting, storing, then shipping and/or piping those substances all over the place, then into further storage, processing, packaging and subsequent further distribution prior to one once being actually consumed for anything the least bit humanitarian worthy.
Along your way as to taking everyone to hell in a hand basket, you proceed to create/perpetrate an anti-hydrogen policy, first by generating false propaganda that belittles the greater importance and hypes only upon the danger aspects, even though of all the fuel/energy resources upon Earth hydrogen is about the safest, obviously the cleanest and it can be easily produced by just about anyone, damn near anywhere, as for being nearly the ideal conversion format as for storing surplus energy and subsequently utilized for the cleanest known form of reproducing electro/mechanical or just thermal uses. Instead, you go about creating this phony hysteria that's been promoted by officially orchestrated disinformation (skewed science, skewed physics as well as skewed logic), so as to destroy any potential commercial applications and thus insure that your dirty petroleum and coal commuming power generating industry, which you and Martha Stewart just happen to own stock in, remains extremely profitable, thus making ENRON/Andersen look like bloody saints.
Next you go about consuming all of that processed and delivered petroleum and coal at no better than 50% efficiency and, at the same time doing whatever it takes of keeping others as well as yourself from implementing anything the least bit nuclear, such as accomplishing what those terrifically safe and efficient reactors as what those no good dirty rotten French have long since mastered and, at long term costing no more than two bits on the dollar (damn those smart ass French, perhaps we should nuke them all).
You next devise upon the grandest scheme possible of creating googles worth of raw BTU's per second, by engineering an assortment of massive rocket engines, both liquid and solid formats, as initially for our perverted goodwill ICBM's, but then you really put the peddle to the metal by putting on a decade's worth of a cold-war show called Apollo, at the added demise of JFK and a host of others, including our damn near instigating a nuclear and/or bio/chemical WW-III.
Lets see; So far over the past few decades, we've only blown a hundred or so trillions, otherwise destroyed the global economy potential of what others including ourselves could have been accomplishing, we've either directly terminated and/or been closely associated and/or responsible for hundreds of thousands being needlessly killed off (not to mention anything Hitler) and, we've kept the supposedly free world (those of us still alive) technologically in the dark ages. I'm not certain but, those Romans seem to have been slackers, as compared to what our warlords have accomplished in just the past few decades.
On to the next phase of taking Earth into hell; In between many perpetrated cold and subsequent seriously hot wars, you devise upon schemes of throwing tonnes of stuff up into orbit. Of course with your initial goodwill intent or gesture being to essentially kill off your competition, even though there's been not one smoking gun worth of documentation that has ever supported the need (God forbid, you wouldn't ever want to work together towards any worthy humanitarian goal). As damn lucky survivors through all of this, we seem to end up at the typically efficient rate of roughly 800,000 pounds of fuel and oxidiser consumed per delivered ton (perhaps that's a million pounds per ton if you actually wanted to send something entirely away from Earth), insuring that a minimum of 200,000 lbs per ton or 25% of all that energy release is what's being converted directly into permanent (artificially new) CO2.
A short list of our shuttle missions accomplishments as follows.
Out of 96 shuttle missions accomplished:
A total of 10,427 tons of orbiter/cargo have been launched into space, including:
- 1,531 tons of payload and integration hardware
--- 472 tons of payload deployed as left in orbit
---- 20 tons were deployed to the Mir space station
---- 26 tons were otherwise retrieved from the Mir space station
---- 34.6 tons rendezvoused with and those items retrieved from orbit
---- 13.0 tons deployed to International Space Station
As a gross tonnage launch tally of 1,531/96 = 15.95 tons per mission.
Yielding an actual net product delivery of 472/96 = 4.9 tons per mission.
Actually going by NASA's record, 60.6 of those tons were not delivered into space but returned from, so that doesn't really count but, I'll let that one slip by. I'm not certain if the above 96 missions included the purely military functions, some of which left little or nothing in orbit.
Each launch directly consumed 4+ million pounds of fuel and oxidiser, much of which was nicely converted into CO2 for you and myself (global warming and all). All toll generating a potential of 500 tonnes (one million pounds) of CO2 per mission delivery, which is roughly 25% of the fuel burn and, that's certainly not including all the ground support infrastructure nor of what further CO2 production was contributed prior to and as a subsequence of every launch and of it's cargo, so perhaps doubling that figure to 1000 tones of CO2 would become a little more realistic (unless of course, those tens of thousands of workers involved from the ground up walked to/from work and otherwise did most of their required duties out of their homes). In other words, roughly 50% of whatever energy it takes as to getting whatever into relatively low orbit is going too leave Earth with roughly another 2,000,000 lbs. of nifty CO2. Getting missions entirely away from Earth, Such as those cold-war Apollo missions, is yet another added energy requirement and thus more CO2 to boot (aren't we lucky) and, that's still not including the hundreds of other commercial ventures that didn't utilize the shuttle.
If we were to include all of the military launched stuff (the good, the bad and the ugly) and of what other nations have managed to fling into space, no wonder Earth is heating up. On top of the insatiable world consumption (mostly speaking USA) of whatever burns, just add up those annual googles worth of BTU's plus all that CO2 tonnage and, surprise surprise, we got heat.
Now then, I'm not going to go on and on about all this because, it's not my expertise and besides, I happen to like whatever is Earth related space stuff and, that includes Mars our moon, Venus and the Sun. Most everything other is simply either too freaking far away or having nothing whatsoever to do with Earth, unless it's responsible for taking a hit that would have otherwise impacted Earth or, we're being thoughtfully informed by the Dogon to trek ourselves off to those moons of Jupiter or perhaps Sirius-C.
Throughout my research, I've already over stipulated upon the obvious, the obtainable and of what's most relevant to Earth's humanity, so I can't add all that much unless you would care to take exception to some of my ideas and/or form of delivery. I just thought it was interesting as to note how so much CO2 has been contributed to Earth's unstable ecology by that of our mostly unessential space missions and, all of that further accumulating for at least the past 13 years in place of our doing a little zero CO2 production as a result of implementing entirely nondestructive goodwill interplanetary communications, such as between Earth and Venus. Even the Venus L2 (VL2) mission, as a purely communications relay platform, would become an insignificant contribution of possibly one tonne launched on it's way to being stationed at VL2, thus only infecting Earth with another 25 tonnes of total overall CO2 contribution, that's obviously as long as we don't go about utilizing the shuttle for this task. The other idea of simply having those robotic Russian rockets push ISS into the VL2 orbit position could obviously become another perfectly good solution, one that all nations, including ESA, could affordably contribute and gain from, in that way ISS would become simply too far away for that shuttle as is to effectively deal with ISS and, we thereby would not have the need as for risking further crew nor as for creating so darn much raw (at least 16X more) CO2.
Of course, once we've sufficiently created our own miserable greenhouse fiasco, we could then go about asking those having the most experience and expertise in such matters, what do we do about our surviving. That would mean learning yet another possibly forked tongue language and, trying really hard at not pissing off another well established religion that's already been a little too damn hot under their exoskeletal collar.
All I can say for certain is, there's thousands of tonnes more CO2 on the way and, our chief commander and resident warlord doesn't have a clue about what to do about much of anything, except blowing everything in sight sky high, then polluting whatever is left over...