> The fact is, even if we reach net zero in 2050 - which is unlikely - the amount of GHC in the atmosphere will be quite high and the capacity of the ocean to a

> The fact is, even if we reach net zero in 2050 - which is unlikely - the amount of GHC in the atmosphere will be quite high and the capacity of the ocean to absorb some which we are relying upon is far from infinite and might be slowing down. We need capture. We won’t fix the issue without. And to do that we need time which geoengineering could give us. The amount of energy required to recapture the emitted CO2 is mind-boggling though. Reducing it in terms of thermodynamics give a better overlook on how absurd the amount of energy would be required to revert CO2 into some other stable form that can be buried somewhere, as much as I'd love some magical technology enabling that we simply do not have the tech, we do not have the abundance of energy to capture even 1% of the CO2 emitted in a year. If we went full sci-fi with dependable fusion reactors providing as clean and cheap energy as possible we would still need many, many reactors tasked with just providing energy to capture CO2.