No, you misunderstand. Capturing CO₂ from typical atmosphere is a very difficult problem, and it's a big problem too. Talking about that distracts from a probl

No, you misunderstand. Capturing CO₂ from typical atmosphere is a very difficult problem, and it's a big problem too. Talking about that distracts from a problem that's much smaller and more accessible, namely capturing CO₂ from the parts of the atmosphere where there's very much CO₂. The photo shows a number of pipelines that guide CO₂ up and release it. Capturing it at the top of the photo, in the open air, is very much more difficult and expensive than capturing it near the middle, in those big vertical things. https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/TfTxDMlqODtgyGkRG6-j9Y-Sv50=/0x0:4814x3562/920x613/filters:focal(2022x1396:2792x2166):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/69054702/1231898565.0.jpg https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/TfTxDMlqODtgyGkRG6-j9Y-Sv50=... If you start thinking about how to capture it in the middle of the photo, you very quickly also consider other ways of achieving the same goal at the same site. Capturing CO₂ is damned expensive compared to those other ways, and the discussion is a distraction. IMO capturing old CO₂ is necessary (as the article says) but when discussed it's usually contrasted to current emissions rather than old emissions, and it's hopelessly inefficient compared to current emissions. We can't go back in time and avoid old emissions, so avoiding capture isn't IMO possible. For the time being it's irrelevant because there current level of emissions (the highest of all time) presents us with very much to do that's both simpler and cheaper.