> According to the new report by research firm Rhodium Group, the US needs to spend roughly $100 billion a year on CDR in order to scale up to a level that woul

> According to the new report by research firm Rhodium Group, the US needs to spend roughly $100 billion a year on CDR in order to scale up to a level that would help the country meet its climate goals. That's not expensive. That's less than $300 per person per year. The US spends $800B on military. If $100B were to make a dent in climate change, that's a bargain. I'd consider the US spending anything short of $1T / year here reasonable, sustainable, and likely economically-beneficial. That's about 3% of GDP, for reference. The reason for having a military is to be disaster-ready. Even medical spending is something like 1/3 of our GDP, and reducing pollution would help there. Any way you run the numbers, $100B is not much here, and critically, those costs would go down as we invest and technology improves. I'm very far from the far-left fringe in terms of believing in some of the horror stories around climate change -- the discourse is polarized -- but even taking relatively right-wing estimates of impact, it's hard to see how a spend on that order is not justified. The problem here is people don't see the difference between large numbers. $5M, $5B, and $5T all simply look "big."