“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.
Considering it took eons to get the carbon into solid form from the last time it was in the atmosphere, that makes sense.
The article is mostly skeptical and most agree carbon capture is extremely inefficient compared to avoiding burning fossil fuels in the first place, which I agree with. But I also think in a broad strategy to leverage as many sectors and technologies as possible to fight climate change, using $1b from a $400b bill is not necessarily a bad thing, if only to diversify our approach or keep the potential alive for a breakthrough.
Necessary
