> Not sure why you bring up solar. It's an example of a solution people, companies and politicians are pushing that, in the end, is a myth. > I think your ove

> Not sure why you bring up solar. It's an example of a solution people, companies and politicians are pushing that, in the end, is a myth. > I think your overall point is ignoring the ability to develop carbon sequestration at industrial scale. No, I am not. I have yet to see a solution that doesn't include some element of "then a miracle occurs". It always boils down to a massive requirement of energy and resources (minerals, materials, transportation, construction, etc.). I also always ignores that this is a planetary scale problem. This isn't about plopping a HEPA filter in an office. Following-up on that example, cleaning a mess always takes more energy and resources than what went into creating it in the first place. I have actually designed and built large cleanrooms for aerospace manufacturing applications. You'd be surprised to find out just how expensive, difficult and energy hungry air cleaning can be. One of my favorite over-simplifications is the idea of dumping a bucket of dirt into an Olympic-size swimming pool and allowing it to circulate. The task, then, is to clean every particle of the newly introduced dirt --not the existing dirt, the new stuff-- from the water. The comparison between the energy and effort required to collect and dump a bucket of dirt into the pool and that required to remove it is of staggering proportions. We are talking about a planetary scale problem. Having played with the numbers, I very much doubt we can develop any kind of energy source that will allow us to accelerate CO2 removal to a rate a thousand times faster than the natural baseline. I don't think it can be done. The numbers are horrifically large and too many variables conspire against anything we might do. One good forest fire or volcano eruption and a year's worth of progress is gone, if not more.