Most comments are missing the point of Direct Air Capture (at least the point the people working on this are making): In no economic way can DAC compete with no

Most comments are missing the point of Direct Air Capture (at least the point the people working on this are making): In no economic way can DAC compete with not putting CO2 in the atmosphere in the first place. It is vital that we do our very best to first reduce and then eliminate our emissions. But even with this very best, there is still going to be lots of CO2 we've blasted into the atmosphere on the way to zero emissions that we will want to get back. And sure hundreds of dollars per ton of CO2 is extremely expensive, but by then removing it out of the air is our only option, and it is (probably - if the economy of scale works out) still cheaper than the damage climate change inflicts. Still, why do DAC now, when there currently are better options available (preventing emissions)? The reason is that we need to give those economics of scale a chance, and the prices can't come down without incremental improvements and real world experiments that will take some time. For everyone who likes podcasts as a medium, here is an in-depth interview with Peter Psarras who's researching DAC: omega tau science & engineering podcast: 387 - Direct Air Capture Episode webpage: http://omegataupodcast.net/387-direct-air-capture/ http://omegataupodcast.net/387-direct-air-capture/ Media file: http://omegataupodcast.net/podlove/file/394/s/feed/c/mp3/omegatau-387-directAirCapture.mp3 http://omegataupodcast.net/podlove/file/394/s/feed/c/mp3/ome...