@davidho Thank you for this great citation to the mismatch-of-scales problem we're having here.

Just knowing physics, my only argument against CDR has been that very basic thermodynamics (the 2nd law to be precise) tells us that it's foolish in the extreme to invest a lot of work into gathering CO2 from the atmosphere before we've figured out how to stop *producing* work by *dispersing* CO2 into the atmosphere elsewhere in the system.

@CadeJohnson @davidho I don't think it's a foolish thing to do per se, and it's fun to think about it. My best bet so far is growing energy forest and then sink it into the nearest peat bog instead of lighting it up.

But I think it is a foolish thing for politicians to pour research money over before they've banned themselves some choal plants.

@CadeJohnson @davidho I worry that there's a degree of escapism about a lot of thinking about this. We want so much to clean up after ourselves, and for there to be *a way* (I'm as guilty of this as anyone). And of course there are things we can do to remove CO2.

But, just as you hint at, most likely we'll end up having to largely rely on nature to do the cleaning up, if for no other reason because natural processes are the only things already operating at the relevant scale.

@CadeJohnson @davidho And, yes, I'm also frustrated about the fact that this is not in fact a scientific problem. It is a political problem. We're doing our bit, which is coming up with alternatives as fast as we can (I wish I knew how to contribute more and better).

But as long as the political will to stop dispersing CO2 in the atmosphere is lacking, the 2nd law works against our efforts. And she's a pretty harsh mistress.