I think logically you need the same order of magnitude to remove CO2 from the atmosphere as you gained form burning the fossil fuels. But I'm not sure where the practical limit is.

The only solution that makes remotely sense is using large areas of the ocean where nothing grows anyway and have a fleet of hundreds of ships that seed out algae that grows, absorbs sunlight and CO2 and then rains down on the ocean floor to sequester the carbon. Otherwise we don't have the land, energy and resources and money to do any of this.

[–] Eheran@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It does not make sense. Like replacing the light on your oven with an LED instead of the massive flood lights lighting up your castle. Look at the MAC diagram here to see what the low hanging fruits are and which fruits are so high up that no ladder reaches them.

[–] AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You mean we should just cut emissions and not try to remove CO2? Or am I missing something in the article?

I don't think we can do enough off that list to make enough difference. And we're already hitting positive feedback cycles so we need some way to remove CO2. I doubt either of those things will happen, but theoretically we need both now.

[–] Eheran@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

You have a finite amount of resources. Your want to reduce/limit global warming add much as possible. So you need to spend the resources as effective as possible, not in applications that cost 10x as much for the same effect.