That's another point I hadn't considered but it seems like we should have the means to do all of that without causing more carbon emissions. Money can't be the reason we don't do it, that's a copout.

I kinda agree with you. If it works & it doesn't cause some other problem that might turn out to be worse, we should probably be using it even if it's expensive.

So is it a technology that has to be placed on site to work? The way carbon emissions from specific facilities are affecting the entire world, it almost seems counterintuitive to think you couldn't also set up carbon capture "plants" around the world to offset emissions.

I know the political process doesn't work this way but it seems like you should just force them to do it in this situation because of what will happen if they don't. Idk, maybe they have so many greedy allies that it would turn into a violent disaster.

If this technology exists already then, regardless of the cost of the current or even earlier versions of it, why is it not already being used? Why doesn't every group or politician fighting against climate change push for it to be implemented?

Edit: Thanks for all of your responses. I'm glad there was an opportunity to learn more information about this. It didn't make sense to me that such a promising solution wouldn't have already been used but now I see putting a plan into action is a little complicated.

Lots of people are being fooled into electing the wrong leaders to combat this because of how the political process works.