Exactly. And as temperatures rise, the oceans release said carbon.

Ethanol was just the example.
There are other fuels we can make like Bio-Diesel using Algae. (In-fact there is such an enterprise just up north from me.)

There is also Carbon capturing and binding the carbon with hydrogen to make fuel.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/06/carbon-engineering-liquid-fuel-carbon-capture-neutral-science/

I already have.
But for every 1c in temperature rises associated with the green house effect, the more CO2 is released from our Arctic regions and the oceans.
There will reach a point where there will be a large associated jump.

They are both as bad as each other.
Don't regret being a centrist at all.

Yeah this legitimately annoys me. It's stupid.
We don't have any Nuclear power here at all... Yet it is green, plentiful... And we have a stupidly massive amount of Nuclear energy potential buried under our feet.

https://climatekids.nasa.gov/ocean/

I don't think that's how it works based on the above example from NASA climatekids in the question "How does the ocean suck up CO2 ?". Most of the CO2 sucked up by the ocean isn't because of the change in the ionization of the water, it's mainly down to marine life like plants and bacteria photosynthesizing. I'm also not sure how ionized water is supposed to release carbon too, wouldn't that mean we'd have more bouts of acidic rain instead ? 

What I also don't think is the temperature rises in the worst case scenario will start making our oceans boil either assuming that you meant the ions trapped in the water will change into gaseous form rapidly. Water has a boiling point of 100'C at 100 kPa ... 

If we wanted to get more complex as to what will happen with the CO2 in the ocean, as organic plant life is formed it can either get consumed by marine animals or it will decay into simpler organic hydrocarbons in anaerobic environments. In the latter case as some may have guessed through the magic of geology, it get's reformed as what we know today as fossil fuels!  

Wouldn't that be a positive that we can now technically cycle carbon dioxide into hydrocarbons faster ?  

It would be a win-win situation where we don't have to give up our gas guzzling vehicles if we can recycle our carbon faster in an economical way ... 

So far the ocean has been a carbon sink mainly thanks to the organisms living in it so I wouldn't bet on the arctic being a tipping of any sort ... 

Both are pretty bad indeed but the reason why the representatives of science (mainly scientists) have a small representation in democracy is because they reek and stink of elitism like one would see from a technocracy so that's why they mostly keep losing in elections since they can't find anyway to appeal to a larger base of constituents. Scientists suck at the game called "democracy" so autocracy it is for them ... 

It doesn't help that the representatives of science that they make enemies willingly along the way ... (theoconservatives, serving corporate pharmaceutical interests, hardcore nature lovers etc) 

It's cause of their fear of nuclear meltdowns and radioactive contamination, hopefully with gen 4 nuclear reactors we'll put many of those fears to rest because finding a way to store intermittent sources like light and wind is starting to become a lot less realistic ... (nearly all of our options for storing those sources of energy have been a failure) 

Any change we make will have to have China's cooperation since they produce more co2 emissions than even the US. At this point in time, though, it might just be a good idea to move away from coastlines in the next 20-30 years.

• Geothermal

• Stop eating farmed meat and wild caught fish from depleting systems (mainly large fresh water lakes, oceans, seas)

• Solar panels

• Invest in wind turbines

• Don’t buy non-recyclable plastics

• Don’t purchase products from China, the US, the Brazil, and other nations who are not committed to ending climate change.

• If your space allows, plant gardens that allow for small ecosystems.

Can we fix/stop/modify any of this?

Depends if China gets on board, but that's highly unlikely because their rapidly expanding their coal fired power stations to somewhere in the area of generating 1200 gigawatts.
Country Fossil fuel CO2 emissions (kt) in 2016[11]

China 10,432,751
United States 5,011,687
India 2,533,638
Russia 1,661,899
Japan 1,239,592
Germany 775,752
Canada 675,919
Iran 642,560
South Korea 604,044
Indonesia 530,036
And this is 2016. Who know how much higher they are now. What this chart does expose is, no country can complete with China in manufacturing price.