Wasting a lot dealing with a symptom while still failing to address the real problem is the kind of solution that is not solution at all.
What's wrong with that ? That's the issue many have and fortunately, you tell it like it is. People don't want to change.
Public transportation, changing the "dream of traveling" into another one, having electronic that lasts for 10 years instead of 5, better insulation, and the list goes on. Yes, one can change the global standard of living into other not lesser global standard.
Or you think it's already too late and then, well, it's effectively too late.
Ambitious (and probably also clueless/disbelieving) ideologues will spin junk food narratives that move the masses.
And you will have war everywhere.
So it makes sense to roll the dice on remediation and hope slow social change takes. The only alternative is a horrible age for humanity, one way or another.
Distracting people with things that will not end up working brings catastrophe nearer.
[1] Geothermal is an exception. Gas is also technically a constrained resource, but not on a timescale relevant to this century.
Of course very little storage is built yet, because it would be beyond stupid to build storage that there is not renewable capacity, yet, to charge up. Money is overwhelmingly better spent on generation capacity, first. Storage cost is falling faster than solar. When we build it, it will be very cheap.
It's not a vote winner.
I should think that was fairly obvious. People do not like to be "dramatically" poorer, or even just a little.
Civilization not collapsing immediately, maybe moreso.
Many people have faith that as-yet-unknown technological innovations will save us. Other people have faith that Jesus will return from heaven and save them. Faith sure must be comforting!
Given the knowledge we actually have, and the tools which are actually available, there appears to be a choice between working our way down to a lower standard of living now, gradually, as we transition to renewable energy, or dealing with an abrupt shock later, coping with the sudden chaotic arrival at a lower standard of living involuntarily, after the wheels have come off the fossil-fuel party all at once.
Given the ~40 years it will take to reach net-zero CO2 emissions, we will certainly miss a good number of climatic tipping points, and the environmental changes which result will add even more pressure to our existing risks. It is only sensible to buy ourselves as much time as possible by reducing energy demand. How do we do that? Well... that was my original remark.
Anything that interferes with building out renewables as absolutely fast as they can be brings global catastrophe nearer.
Global civilization collapse would be hard on people.
People who like looking ahead when investing should be thinking the same about all coastal and low lying regions. Resale value will be nil.
By the time a 30 year mortgage is over, the next buyer will be looking to the end of their own 30 year mortgage, and what they see won’t look good.
So there will be no buyers.
People don’t want to leave worthless property to their children, so the smart people who foresee this chain of events will get out now.
If we keep warming to 3 degrees, do you think the sea works will not be enough?
Collapsing civilization is bad for property values. And for the concept of property as such.
There is a reason scientists are concerned.
On the positive side for the Netherlands, their expertise will be coveted worldwide as hapless nations futilely seek to forestall the inevitable stage by stage.
Attempting any sort of "quick fix" guarantees quicker failure.
Civilization collapsing would anyway slow CO2 rise, but at substantial... cost. Probably mass extinction would happen either way.
And, addressing symptoms does not actually put off catastrophe.
Unfortunately we past the point of just needing to address the causes. This patient is in the hospital and needs all the medical intervention we can provide.
We have an antibiotic that would work. We just need to use it. Each second's delay administering the antibiotic increases odds of death.
Diverting resources to capture would steal from displacing CO2 emitters. There is no way you can capture more than is being emitted until the amount emitted is driven way, way down. Only after you cannot displace much output anymore are other methods of any use.
You get overwhelmingly more benefit from each dollar by displacing output.
When you buy candy, are you diverting resources away from cutting CO2 emissions? When you buy a movie ticket? Every month when you pay your Netflix subscription?
We can do both. In fact we MUST do both.
There is only one way that works. All others mean disaster.
At a big enough scale, GHG may start to reduce globally. That is the disease. Without that won't be any solution, just fragile mitigations in our way to the end of civilization as we know it. No matter how expensive or damaging it looks, the alternative will be always worse.
If, besides doing that, you want to add some mitigation to the warming, and that don't slow down nor stop GHG reduction, be may guest. But applying nail polish instead of stopping an hemorrhage is somewhat shortsighted, priorities should be clear.