Basically: you can do it, but for almost all applications, it’s a lot cheaper to avoid burning fossil fuels than it is to remove CO2 from the atmosphere afterwards.
The problem is there’s a few hundred billion tonnes or so that needs removing and it can’t go from 0 to billions of tonnes per year overnight, but as soon as you start doing it publicly propagandists will flock to it and use it to delay more effective and pressing action.
“vacuum greenhouse gases from the sky” … “many scientists are skeptical of the technology”
well … when you phrase it like that, I wonder why?
Basically: you can do it, but for almost all applications, it’s a lot cheaper to avoid burning fossil fuels than it is to remove CO2 from the atmosphere afterwards.
The problem is there’s a few hundred billion tonnes or so that needs removing and it can’t go from 0 to billions of tonnes per year overnight, but as soon as you start doing it publicly propagandists will flock to it and use it to delay more effective and pressing action.
Mitigating ongoing emissions is cheaper than removing well mixed past emissions.
Considering it took eons to get the carbon into solid form from the last time it was in the atmosphere, that makes sense.