I remember reading this article waiting for my haircut this morning.
Here was my biggest takeaway:
> More realistically, he said, Oman could store at least a billion tons of CO2 annually. (Current yearly worldwide emissions are close to 40 billion tons.)
So we're looking at 2.5% sequestration of what we're currently adding, from the largest deposits in the world. Best case, realistically.
Sometimes the way you solve a big complex distributed global problem is a bit at a time. It’s unlikely we’re going to find one single global solution to carbon sequestration.
There are so many examples I don't even know where to start. Disease eradication (through education, sanitation improvement, suppressing disease vectors, vaccination, etc), then there's poverty reduction, the way piracy was eradicated in the 19th Century, the way ozone depletion was tackled. There are endless examples.
Anyway, what are you actually saying other than taking a cheap shot?
Isn't it the case that much of our emissions are absorbed already (e.g. by oceans, about a third of human activity) such that the 2.5% is a lot higher on the net amount.
e.g. say we emit 100 and absorb 95, absorbing 2.5% of our total emissions actually cuts net emissions in half. Or are you already figuring that in?
Here was my biggest takeaway:
> More realistically, he said, Oman could store at least a billion tons of CO2 annually. (Current yearly worldwide emissions are close to 40 billion tons.)
So we're looking at 2.5% sequestration of what we're currently adding, from the largest deposits in the world. Best case, realistically.
The whole thing sounds like a total non-starter.