> Every dollar we spent on building DACs is a dollar we don’t spend on building green energy. Correct, but at some point you need to start with developing CCS,

> Every dollar we spent on building DACs is a dollar we don’t spend on building green energy. Correct, but at some point you need to start with developing CCS, and I don't think we have the time to postpone research and pathfinder facilities even further. Solar and wind power have gotten to a point where the current solutions are already mostly commercially viable, so public money doesn't have to be spent on that. If a small portion of it is instead spent on CCS solutions it could significantly reduce the time to net-zero and then time to 1990s-levels of atmospheric CO2. Solar doesn't remove emissions from difficult to replace chemical processes, but (expensive) DAC can compensate this while other solutions are being explored. We do need negative emissions, and the buildup of wind/solar is not that. DAC can be one solution, olivine weathering another, but ignoring the buildup of CO2 while rushing emission stops may still result in too much CO2 over too much time. > And b) again it’s easier to “remove” CO2 from the atmosphere by not putting it there in the first place. That doesn't solve the issue where we've already put in too much CO2 in the atmosphere.