I think such an appliance had already been invented. They are called "trees".
All they need to do their work is corporations leaving them alone.
All they need to do their work is corporations leaving them alone.
Else it is an open cycle where co2 in == co2 out
And the remaining biomass (leaves, bark, etc.) is fine to compost and re-enter the carbon cycle.
Also it's clearly not an open cycle, not in temperate climates. The accumulation of carbon in top soils etc. is one of the things that kept CO2 in balance for millions of years prior to us pulling it out of the ground. Peat bogs being another key one.
Yes, it can't keep up with us. But it's not an open cycle. (It is in the tropics, though)
Would love to see huge fields of them grown, then harvested, and the product turned to lumber and other longer-term carbon storage. Even composted or biocharred and the carbon amended into top soils (yes it won't stay there forever, but...) Assuming the process can be done without emitting more CO2 than is captured.
It's the same reason biofuels cannot be a general replacement for fossil fuels.
Growing trees is nice for other reasons, of course, and some limited CO2 capture would come along for the ride. This would not eliminate the desirability of other kinds of CO2 capture.
If you do the math the only sensible solution is hardcore degrowth starting yesterday.
If rapid degrowth could be enforced, so could switching to sustainable technologies, which do exist and could be employed.
The level of degrowth needed to avoid warming from fossil fuel use would be extreme, if it's the only knob turned. Even a 90% reduction in the rate of fossil fuel extraction and use would not avoid eventual massive global warming. Degrowth would simply delay that outcome.
And growth accelerates it...
Just look into cement, steel, mining, medicine &c. we're not even remotely close to replace fossil fuel, not even a tiny bit, no one even pretends that it's around the corner.
> would not avoid eventual massive global warming
Well nothing will because in a couple of hundred millions years the sun will be too warm anyways
Meanwhile 70% of the wildlife disappeared since 1970, 50% of insects, and we're debating about some shitty tech that would sequester 0.1% of the co2 we emit each day. CO2 isn't even our biggest problem, rain water isn't even safe to drink anywhere on the planet anymore, PFAS, microplastics, chemicals in rivers/lake/aquifers
People who think co2 capture and that replacing 1.4b of ICE by 1.4B of 3000kg EVs are the future are delusional or straight up cognitively impaired
Underlying all this is the moral approach being taken. It is not enough that environmental problems (perceived or otherwise) be solved; humanity must be punished. Solutions that do not also punish are rejected on that basis alone.
> humanity must be punished
We're punishing ourselves right now... look at our food, 75% obese/overweight in the west, 15% of US population on antidepressant, life expectancy going down, testosterone levels dropping 1% per year from the 80s if not before, massive wildlife collapse, nutrients in veggies/fruits massively dropped since the 50s, increasing floods/hurricanes/&c.
> Solutions that do not also punish are rejected on that basis alone
If you're about to get lung cancer because your smoke 1 pack a day you can always tell your doctor you started drinking green tea to get extra antioxidants, as long as you smoke 1 pack a day you're doomed.
That's another study I am skeptical about.
A solar farm doesn't need to be weeded, ploughed, planted, weeded again, topped, and harvested every year like corn does. You also don't need to ferment it to ethanol then burn it at a 70% loss to power a set of wheels.
Possible also that the vegetation growing between and under the panels sequesters carbon.
I wouldn't say biofuels are a dead technology, but they are niche. They may be useful in a post-fossil fuel age for things that are very difficult to electrify, like long distance air travel and production of organic chemical feedstocks.