For synthetic fuels: yes, absolutely... but it requires economical carbon capture, which GP was saying we maybe shouldn't invest in, in favor of emissions reduc

For synthetic fuels: yes, absolutely... but it requires economical carbon capture, which GP was saying we maybe shouldn't invest in, in favor of emissions reductions (and if we want net zero, it'd have to be direct air capture, probably, rather than point source, because in this theoretical future, the coal power plants or whatever are all gone). Anyhow, whether you frame captured-carbon fuels as "you capture carbon and then burn it again so it's neutral" or "you burn it, and then deal with its emissions by capturing it again" is sort of arbitrary, and the latter is basically what I'm already arguing for. Biofuels seem mostly like a crock, honestly -- the ones we can produce now compete with food for arable land and would do so more aggressively at scale, and the ones that wouldn't do that (algal fuels, maybe cellulosic fuels like switchgrass) still require fundamental R&D to make the economics work. And again: even if they did work, this is a solution where you're burning fuels and emitting carbon, and then remedying by capturing again, this time with plants. So again: it's carbon capture.