[carrigan]

I agree that we need to cut back our current emissions. Even if we stopped emitting all greenhouses gasses tomorrow, the global temperature would continue to rise for decades before stabilizing, so there is still plenty of need to capture what we've already let out.

I'm fairly bearish on direct capture solving much though. It requires so much capital and energy just to replicate the carbon capture that we can already do just by growing plants. I hope that companies like Charm will also get significant funding to pursue using plants for the capture part.

[qikInNdOutReply]

The tandem component for direct capture is a clean energy source ala fusion or a solar price drop to a price point on par. So it would make sense to make continued research depending on fusion break throughs.

[slashdev]

The most cost efficient way to do carbon capture is on the smoke stacks of coal power plants. Better than that is not burning the stuff in the first place. Both are way more efficient than these boondoggles trying to pull co2 out of the air where it exists at 400 ppm 0.04%. If we’re not doing the first two, why bother with the last?

There’s no logic in this.

I agree with you we’ll need to remove co2 eventually. But before we worry about that let’s focus editing on stopping making it worse. The payoff there is much higher!

[Charlie_26]

What is Charm?