> A lot of negativity in this thread, oddly.
It's better to reduce emissions than to try and capture a couple of 0.0X% of CO2 in the atmosphere. That's obvious to everyone and so everyone agrees and that gets upvoted.
In reality, good luck having cows and steel (=iron+carbon) and cement on this planet without GHG emissions. Even plane fuel (long-distance flights) is basically going to have to do carbon capture to make 'electrofuels' (or biofuels) that they then burn and put back into the atmosphere, at least with how it's currently looking.
It saddens me to see that people are rambling, and others are voting it to be the current top comment, about teratons (a unit even I hadn't heard being thrown around before) which is of course a ridiculous notion. The point of this technology is to neutralize unavoidable emissions in thirty-odd years. We can't, in thirty years, start to develop this tech and hope it works the next week.
It also allows us to put a direct price point on CO2. You pick: remove CO2 or don't emit it. A smart company will choose the cheaper option. Only a few years ago, planting trees or "preventing emissions" magic accounting was considered offsetting. This sets a new standard.
So long as it's within proportion, I really see no downsides to funding the development of this tech. The roll-out to megaton or gigaton scales, yeah we should see about that when we actually have renewable energy to spare, not when the gas, nay, coal plants are still in full operation. But for now, we're struggling to reach a few dozen kilotons economically, and that's why this is necessary work and good news.