Reading the transcript was a hell of a trip. If I didn't know any better, I would say it was taken from a Teams meeting or something, the back and forth feels so spontaneous it's scary.

It's absolutely true that we need to find a way deal with the extra co2 in the atmosphere, thing is that, since carbon capture is a very inefficient process (gas density and all that), it only becomes a viable method when there are no more easy avenues to reduce other sources of carbon emission.

So, in a future society where every single energy source is green (i.e. nuclear, geothermal, solar etc.), carbon capture would absolutely be considered a good option to reduce co2 in the atmosphere. Today though, not so much, as every little bit of green energy should be directly dedicated to phase out fossil.

I really wished people stopped looking at carbon capture (as in, direct air capture) as a viable solution to climate change and considered it for what it truly is, a publicity stunt energy companies can use to say they're doing something about it while continuing to profit off fossil fuels without a care in the world and starving of funds those solutions that go against their interests (this video by AdamSomething gives some really nice info about it).

Reducing CO2 production at the source is the only viable way to tangibly slow down the effects of climate change. Nuclear fusion will hopefully be the silver bullet needed to actually turn around the situation.

Hell, at this point I would even be ok with skynet taking the reins of global government and go about fix this mess we've made. I mean, given the rate of advancement in the AI field in the last five years, we at least have some good reasons to hope so.