> Say you have a gas plant that emits 1MT of CO2 in a year. Here you are assuming we don't solve the problem as your first premise. Of course everything downs

> Say you have a gas plant that emits 1MT of CO2 in a year. Here you are assuming we don't solve the problem as your first premise. Of course everything downstream of this will be faulty reasoning, because you are defining your start point as having already failed. > If you capture 1MT of CO2 and then use it to make aviation fuel Here you are taking your faulty premise and then heaping magic fantasy unicorn technology on top of it. Even if your starting point hadn't been wrong, you fail the time/carbon constraints of SR 1.5 here because this technology simply doesn't exist in a scalable way (and due to physics very likely never will). This is the practice of climate change denial in 2019. You don't outright deny the problem or the related challenges, you simply spam and ddos the conversation with tangential confused nonsense so that no progress is made. If you work in some kind of r&d lab on CC tech then by all means, prove me the fuck wrong, PLEASE. If you're just some guy on the internet then please please please wrap your brain around the time-carbon constraints we're solving for and stop arguing for us not to.