Underground saline aquifers are an excellent place to store CO2, and worldwide storage space is estimated to be orders of magnitude above what is ever going to

Underground saline aquifers are an excellent place to store CO2, and worldwide storage space is estimated to be orders of magnitude above what is ever going to be needed. Also, keep in mind that CO2 is not stored as a gas, but in dense phase (liquid-like), due to the high pore pressures at the depths considered (> 3000 feet), well above the CO2 critical point. At these depths, any leakage to the surface would be negligeable unless you make a really lousy job in choosing your reservoir. I agree that we should aim to reduce energy usage, but I would argue we would need to both. As often said, there is no "silver bullet" to dealing with climate change, only the possibility of a "silver buckshot", where we'll have to do many large changes at once. Even if we could transit to 100% "green energy" overnight, that alone wouldn't take care of more than less than half of current emissions. A third of emissions come from industrial processes, much of which entirely unrelated to the energy used. In a nutshell, these emissions can be reduced using CO2 capture/storage, or alternatively we could stop making things such as steel, cement or fertilizer.