There are enormous assumptions in most calculations, including the assumption that «carbon negative» technologies, like capturing CO2 from power plants burning biomass, can be
done at a scale remotely relevant to the climate problem (to be relevant one needs to be talking in gigatons of avoided CO2 emissions per year — each a billion tons).
Not exact matches
Monaco is a race that everyone even
remotely interested in motor racing should
do at least once — and there are travel packages that can be
done on any
scale of budget — from value packages organised by the specialist motor racing tour operators through to hospitality and accommodation on one of the large yachts in Monaco harbour.
But when you look
at today's levels of federal investment in R&D (and large -
scale demonstration) in energy sciences, compared to levels on other fronts that have mattered to society,
do you see that as
remotely sufficient?