[natch]

Great post, thank you.

As you acknowledge in your wording, we don't know for sure, but for me this part states it very clearly what might unfortunately be a key driver at least at this stage of that company:

>Depending on how the organization is operated, some individuals are going to be in position to prosper financially in proportion to the size of the cash flow they preside over or participate in, rather than the net positive outcome to the entire whole.

[mitchellvdub]

Wait so the argument is: "There exists the possibility of corruption, so we should discount the opportunity to research further??"

I understand the trepidation for fear of greenwashing. But it's just that, a fear. Until you have evidence of wrong doing why trample on possible world saving research?

As for the above posters second rebuttal, is the argument: "This proccess has been done in the lab before, so this company couldn't have possibly found a more efficient process for doing the same thing?" Isn't this how every incremental step in efficiency is gained? Isn't it a good sign that the process is already known and proven, and so all this company has to do is make it more efficient?

Every new battery chemistry is given front page service, all the while everyone knows there's a slim chance in hell they'll ever be market viable. Shouldn't we be investing in tech that is already proven? Not wild moon shot ideas?

[natch]

There exists an incentive for corruption, is more like it. Therefore we should be skeptical.

Then, with a skeptical eye, we examine the scheme and we see that in order to capture carbon, they are first freeing equivalent carbon that was already captured. And then they are proposing to repeat that process whilst sending the carbon to an unproven magical place that might not work (no concern of theirs) and then claiming credit for it.