[credit_guy]

I am not 100% sure what you are trying to say, but I think you are implying that since no one single solution can solve the climate crisis, then olivine could be part of a portfolio of solutions that each could help a bit.

If that's what you are trying to say, then no. Olivine still does not make sense. One ton of olivine can absorb about one ton of CO2. That means that if we produce and distribute 500 million tons of olivine, we can reduce emissions by 1%. But take a look for about 5 seconds around you. See how many things made of plastic you can identify. No matter where you are, there are dozens or hundreds of them in the same room as you. Well, all the humanity produces only about 400 million tons of plastics. Probably thousands of factories churn out plastics day and night, employing millions of people. If you replicate that in order to produce olivine, it's going to take decades, all for the ultimate result of reducing emissions by 1%. Does that make sense?

I can recite for you right now 20 things that can have a much bigger impact and require much less effort. And you can too.

[PolKnops]

First and foremost: We must reduce emissions, FAST Secondly we need a multiple set of solutions. And now the answer to your question. - we as human kind of moving Gigatons of sand/aggregate every year. Part to be extract minerals/coal below them. Part to make roads, dikes, beaches etc etc. So these quantities are already moved around. In contrast with plastic, the olivine needs to be mined, crushed and applied. So a lot less work as making plastics