> Doing so at such volume requires massive development of green energy sources - and given we're not even building enough green to replace ditry (currently glob

> Doing so at such volume requires massive development of green energy sources - and given we're not even building enough green to replace ditry (currently globally, we're building lots of green and lots of dirty, too), the idea we will then additionally build another civilization-scale supply of green energy for CO2 capture seems improbable. This is entirely depending on whether you think nuclear is "green enough". But anyway the original article is bs.