The parent comment was about airplanes. The argument was that batteries are too heavy and that airplanes will still need to run on hydrocarbon fuel. And the a

The parent comment was about airplanes. The argument was that batteries are too heavy and that airplanes will still need to run on hydrocarbon fuel. And the argument the parent made is: you burn the fuel in the airplane engine and then sequester it later. And my response is: ok, but if you're sequestering carbon anyway, then use carbon you just sequestered instead of burning new carbon. You didn't understand my point.