How about we stop creating false dichotomies of action, and take multiple paths to solve this existential crisis? I understand you are saying this is a smokescr

How about we stop creating false dichotomies of action, and take multiple paths to solve this existential crisis? I understand you are saying this is a smokescreen by the fossil fuel industry to avoid reducing emissions. You're probably right! But that doesn't mean this isn't a valuable and perhaps necessary complement to reducing emissions as well, and frankly if the fossil fuel industry can sequester enough carbon to offset their emissions then so be it (note: this won't happen). More likely, I see this as a way to mitigate some of the past damage as we continue reducing our emissions with renewables. Ultimately we need to go net negative, and at the moment these marginal investments in the technology are worth exploring in my opinion.