> The gasoline produced from carbon is then intended for burn...
If it's captured from the atmosphere and then burnt then surely it's zero-sum (apart from the energy cost of capture). Is this not better than releasing historically captured fossil fuels with a larger net increase in atmospheric levels?
If the capturing process is net-negative in terms of CO2 emmissions then perhaps we could invest in capturing more than we require for fuel - ie pull the CO2 out of the atmosphere and stockpile it in non-gaseous form. My experience is that people are willing to pay to clear their conscience and feel that they're making a positive climate change impact, but irrationally very resistant to changing their own behaviour.
If it's captured from the atmosphere and then burnt then surely it's zero-sum (apart from the energy cost of capture). Is this not better than releasing historically captured fossil fuels with a larger net increase in atmospheric levels?
If the capturing process is net-negative in terms of CO2 emmissions then perhaps we could invest in capturing more than we require for fuel - ie pull the CO2 out of the atmosphere and stockpile it in non-gaseous form. My experience is that people are willing to pay to clear their conscience and feel that they're making a positive climate change impact, but irrationally very resistant to changing their own behaviour.