This argument is so naïve that I had to create an HN account (downvote ready comment for dissing HN commenters). Do note that I am not dissing the author. He did claim a lack of expertise, but I am sad to see the comments trying to analyze the directly presented facts than being detail driven. E.g. I saw some reference to Allum's process of reusing CO2. What it skips is the fact that it barely effects efficiency, but certainly sees that is better than excusing. I still don't understand how $ among is used to measure environmental impact is a relationship people can think is easy measure. Maybe because short term thinking is rewarded better, hence the success of capitalism (I'm not pro/anti, but that's the root of the philosophy). I am assuming that people understand that Carbon capture doesn't resolve environmental changes. It simply offsets a part of it - the global warming aspect. A LOT of impact is straight up coming from pollution/contamination of water and soil, recurring costs of restructuring landscapes, causing earthquakes to floods and terraforming from receding coastlines, destruction of habitats, leading from contaminated species to complete destruction is food sources. The cascading effect of environmental damages is like paying a loan. As humans we are known to be overconfident of "I can fix it". But remind me historically when THAT had worked? Almost in all cases, it had been "I can forget this". Except in this case, I think if we had to expend that sort of money to "solve the problem", then we might as well just find a new planet to squander. In 50 years, we would have spent trillions of dollars unanimously and probably got to Mars

[Edit] typos