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't harm bees or that the latest blockbuster pharmaceutical has no side effects.  The sheer mass of money in position to lobby for the "fossil fuel use is fine!" 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 "oil sands financier N. Murray Edwards" as one of it's principal backers.  And the article's "outside expert's opinion" quote comes from Stephen Pacal, co-director of the Carbon Mitigation Initiative at Princeton- which has an "extended partnership with BP" worth a great deal of money [1].  The financial conflicts behind this research are <i>staggering</i>.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.princeton.edu/news/2010/11/18/carbon-mitigation-initiative-receives-11-million-through-extended-partnership-bp" rel="nofollow">https://www.princeton.edu/news/2010/11/18/carbon-mitigation-...</a>