Not true at all (or only in limited circumstances that do not apply First, it was not the original energy expenditure that is the problem. The problem is that

Not true at all (or only in limited circumstances that do not apply First, it was not the original energy expenditure that is the problem. The problem is that the CO2 CHANGES the solar energy exchange equation, by allowing ~the same amount of solar energy to the earth's surface, but REDUCING the earth's ability radiate that energy back to space. That newly captured energy VASTLY EXCEEDS the original energy that went into adding the CO2 to the atmosphere. That original energy spent has almost zero impact on climate change. Next, capture requires none of the things you say. — Carbon capture can be done by 'farming' high-uptake organisms, which has extreme leverage for energy expended. Examples include iron-seeding of water to make algae blooms, planting high uptake trees, etc. — Carbon capture can be done by accelerating natural chemical processes, e.g., exposing rocks that react with water and CO@, or crushing those rocks and spreading them on fields (iirc, Google just contracted with a company doing exactly that) — Carbon capture can be done by enzyme-driven processes that make the desired reactions happen with minimal artificial energy input — Even if you want to use a chemistry that requires direct energy input, there is zero requirement to recover the original highly complex and energy-dense molecules previously used for fuel, it only needs to make a compound that can be captured. Still requires less energy than original used. — Even if you insist on producing new molecules as energy-dense as the originals, there is vastly more energy available via non-CO2-outputting sources, such as solar, wind, etc. which often produce surpluses. Again, the energy of the process has almost zero to do with promoting climate change. So, NO, it neither a bad joke, a process that requires breaking laws of physics, at fantasy, or a scam.