@dmacphee @famousringo On the other hand, protecting and expanding forests(not simply tree farms) would be more effective, and cheaper.
Carbon Capture & Storage tech requires similar amounts of energy as what put the carbon there in the first place.

https://news.mit.edu/2024/reality-check-tech-to-remove-carbon-dioxide-from-air-1120

@famousringo @dmacphee Can’t disagree. 8 Billion industrialized mammals are going to damage the ecology, no matter what we do. But I’m leery of any additional tech (with attendant pressure for profits) solving problems caused by technology. And I know that requires nuance, as you illustrated!

@dmacphee Yes! The energy requirements to capture GHG at source are ridiculous. The paper linked below estimates 58% of total energy generated will be used to capture, process, and sequester the CO2 generated.
And as for the sucking carbon out of the air…that’s what forests are for.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544221010525