> “And my house's insulation is not good (old house).”
Depending on where you live and how you heat your house, fixing this one thing might be more effective at reducing emissions than everything else you’re doing combined.
Isn't the net result the same? Is it better to pay (for example) $500 to remove a tonne of CO2 from the atmosphere, or to pay $100 to prevent the same amount of CO2 from being emitted in the first place?
If CO2 removal costs us more than emissions reduction technologies, isn't it a false economy?