[newt_slowly]

> So how can it be feasible to afford enough energy to "unburn" a century's worth of burnt carbon if we can't even get enough energy to avoid burning new carbon in the first place?

It isn't, and it won't be. Carbon capture is a pleasing myth we tell ourselves to avoid the massive and immediate actions that would be necessary to avert catastrophe.

We're addicted to fossil fuels, telling ourselves that when we eventually sober up we can undo the damage we've done to ourselves.

[imtringued]

Carbon capture will never lead to negative emissions. What it will do is merely capture CO2 at central locations for processes that have no alternative.

[epistasis]

I sincerely hope you are wrong, because if you are not, we will never keep to less than 1.5C of warming. Every single pathway for that requires carbon capture above and beyond what we can do with terrestrial processes.

There are several startups trying to come up with ways of sequestering atmospheric carbon in ways that will last for thousands of years. We need something like that to work, and to come up with ways to fund massive deployment in the second half of this century.