Processing and transport requires energy which is unlikely to be renewable. To maximize impact I think we need to find some efficient system, perhaps algae or GMO plants or weeds, that sinks carbon straight into the earth. Perhaps very verdant places like Minnesota, residents could be encouraged to collect deciduous leaves each year and round them up for sequestration (which again requires energy). Or renewable and nuclear power plants could use all of their excess power toward some kind of machine that scrubs co2, which becomes a solid at relatively high temperature of -75C (compared to liquid o2 or n2).
We could artificially capture arbitrary amounts of carbon using nuclear and renewable power, but I think it's important to consider how such activities would be paid for.
It seems more politically feasible to me, to incentivise ecologically healthy consumption through taxation (e.g. carbon tax; fuel duties; severance taxes), than to fund grand reparative projects.
they should be paid for by the industries that caused the pollution: oil and gas, automobile, manufacturing. I don't think there is any dichotomy regarding encouraging healthy consumption. Even if we were carbon neutral today, how are we going to siphon back the excess carbon that has been released over the last century?
