[gfaster]

The pessimism here is because there is no real money to be made in carbon capture without significant and expensive policy change. Put simply, carbon capture is a public good, which will require significant public expense even in the most optimistic of cases. If we're willing to go that far, we're better off just implementing a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade scheme for emissions.

Our problem is that this is a technological solution for a problem that needs a policy solution.

[icegreentea2]

The problem needs both policy and technological solutions.

In fact, in a certain way the policy part is already there - the latest IPCC reports project that carbon removal will have to be part of our strategies for staying below the 1.5C target (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-removal-un...).

[ncmncm]

That is not a policy. It is just a hint that a policy would be welcome if anybody would ever come up with one.

[sterlind]

climate change regulation is the political equivalent of achieving fusion power, though. it's so hard. it's a planet-scale prisoner's dilemma.

every economic/political actor sees only long-term benefits from fixing the climate, and those benefits are the average of each actor's carbon contributions. everyone has an incentive to cut corners (spin up those coal plants to keep energy cheap) unless doing the right thing just so happens to be the easiest thing (solar costs less now.)

infinite economics and peace Nobels for whoever solves that. or physics Nobels for whoever makes fusion practical. it's basically the same thing, after all.