[jgreen10]

The amount of carbon emissions is simply far too large for sequestration efforts, natural or otherwise, to make a significant dent.

In the end, what the world needs is an abundance of cheap energy without proportional carbon emissions. Everything else is secondary.

[arthur2e5]

Any hypothetical sequestration into a fuel (as in the parent parent comment) would also require a power source, so the question goes back to low-carbon power!

[nvm0n2]

Although in fairness liquid fuels are storable, so you can use intermittent solar and wind to run syngas processes. Low carbon power isn't really the hard part, grid stability and the existing vehicle fleet is.

Also of course, you could theoretically build nuke plants in the middle of nowhere that are remotely operatable, then use the power to make fuel. That could avoid NIMBY related costs.

[alexchamberlain]

I think low-carbon power is fairly well understood in the form of solar and wind, and in future, maybe wave. The big problem is we can't store it or meaningfully transport it over huge distances.

[simpleblend]

You would think that if the world is truly on the brink of devastation, it would be at least worthy of TRYING nuclear power.