>The trouble right now is the extremely high cost of pulling carbon directly out of the air. Switzerland's Climeworks operates at 14 locations presently, with large factories processing ambient air and separating out the carbon, but its costs are currently somewhere in the range of US$600-1000 per ton, and its own future projections graph doesn't show this price dropping much below US$250/ton by 2035.<p>Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. In this case, just because we can build a technologically advanced solution to capture carbon doesn't mean we actually should be investing so many resources in that when we already have something that does the job incredibly well: Trees. They do one heck of a job capturing carbon and cost nothing.
This appears to be inspired by an idea published years ago which suggested building industrial refridgeration in Antarctica to achieve the same goals.<p><a href="https://judithcurry.com/2012/08/24/a-modest-proposal-for-sequestration-of-co2-in-the-antarctic/" rel="nofollow">https://judithcurry.com/2012/08/24/a-modest-proposal-for-seq...</a>
Carbon capture by tree method is better. But it does not work well enough in urban areas.<p>As co2 is heavy, it settles to the ground quickly in cool areas. Like jungles and forests with lots of shade. High co2 density in such areas contributes to tree growth. That’s probably the better location for co2 capture.