Sucking carbon dioxide from air is cheaper than scientists thought
Remember that, <i>a priori</i>, you should be far more skeptical of studies with this sort of result than, say, studies showing that neocortinoids don&#x27;t harm bees or that the latest blockbuster pharmaceutical has no side effects.  The sheer mass of money in position to lobby for the &quot;fossil fuel use is fine!&quot; position dwarfs that of all other financially-fraught research questions put together.<p>To wit; the company behind the paper in question, Carbon Engineering, is noted by Wikipedia as having &quot;oil sands financier N. Murray Edwards&quot; as one of it&#x27;s principal backers.  And the article&#x27;s &quot;outside expert&#x27;s opinion&quot; quote comes from Stephen Pacal, co-director of the Carbon Mitigation Initiative at Princeton- which has an &quot;extended partnership with BP&quot; worth a great deal of money [1].  The financial conflicts behind this research are <i>staggering</i>.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.princeton.edu&#x2F;news&#x2F;2010&#x2F;11&#x2F;18&#x2F;carbon-mitigation-initiative-receives-11-million-through-extended-partnership-bp" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.princeton.edu&#x2F;news&#x2F;2010&#x2F;11&#x2F;18&#x2F;carbon-mitigation-...</a>