What if we liquify it into a black gooey form first?

They do mention serpentisation in the article as an alternative, but point out almost none of the current projects are bothering with that, and are just going for immobilised storage in sedimentary rock instead.

You’re obviously not considering the economy. We have to find a way to consume our way out of this problem

*100 yrs

Anybody serious already knew carbon capture is not a solution. Reducing CO2 and electrifying with clean power is always cheaper than generating a lot more additional power for capturing CO2. It's how the physics work out. It could've worked for cleaning up afterwards when all the rest was already clean and green.

Who could have possibly guessed?

doesn’t just make it’s way back there?

Well, it kind of does, just like it did before. It's just way too slow for us hairless monkeys to see it happening, we're all gone well before that happens. Eventually some other lizard will crawl up to the land from the sea and maybe it's a bit wiser than us.

It's all about quantity.

The fossil fuel industry is digging up the plants of forests and jungles and algae that have existed over millennia, then died and decomposed into oil, coal, gas. When you then burn it you release the carbon of hundreds of generations of plant life.

Fossil fuels are dead plant concentrate.

I think one problem with this is that there is only so much land/sea on earth. Once all available land is forested you have completely maxed out this option. Then when a tree dies and falls over most of its carbon begins to be released back into the atmosphere by decomposing organisms so you are reliant on another tree taking its place to maintain status quo. Same for any biological solution (algae dies/eaten -> carbon released).

Two factors, basically.

Vegetation rots back out to the atmosphere. Bogs are better in that way, because they trap and grow over their own detritus. Managed forests are also pretty carbon-negative, because the carbon is now trapped in whatever wood products for centuries. Ocean-based stuff has had mixed results, though. You could also char and dispose of your biomass before it rots, but now you're adding complexity.

Which brings us to the second: It might be expensive and slow, relative to just artificially capturing it and shoving it underground. Plants are not known for their speed, and reasonably moist land is expensive.

That being said, it's still a serious contender for how to take care of carbon we've already burned, alongside this and other options like grinding up and spreading certain kinds of stone.

What others have mentioned here, plus seagrass and kelp. There is a lot of recovery to do of these once massive ecosystems, thus a lot of carbon to tie up.

Don't worry, at least the billionaire parasites and their offspring will survive in their underground shelters!

"We thought it was 10. Turns out it was 1."

Ten times less: x * 0.1

Fuck you

Lol, no. We can turn back.