A bit pessimistic though right? Carbon capture through both natural and engineered methods is a thing that could have more investment/incentive if that were the case which counters the idea that just because CO2 hangs around a long time doesn't mean there's nothing to be done about it.
Obviously, it'd be great to limit the production of more CO2 going forward but I don't believe that everyone will collectively just give up.
I can not understand how carbon capture can be proposed as a solution for reducing the atmospheric CO2 levels. At best, it can be used at high-intensity production sites to reduce the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere.
We are currently pumping every day 35 billion tons of carbon into an atmosphere that already has umpteen billions of tons of carbon that needs to be removed. We are never going to have machinery or technology that can remove carbon at the necessary scale. And not only is the volume an impossibility, the energy requirements are, too: it will require more energy to remove the carbon than it provided in the first place.
Best I can figure is we need to use fast-growing solar-powered organics. Replace corn with hemp, or grow algae, something like that, and sequester the mature product at an active subduction zone. Return it back into the deep earth.
If you're curious about this, the recent IPCC report publications on mitigation have great meta-analysis on the component of carbon capture and as someone who also had put some mental stock in this (don't we all wish we could engineer our way out of this one easily?), I found it sobering. And then consider that many people found the reports too soft on CC.
Obviously, it'd be great to limit the production of more CO2 going forward but I don't believe that everyone will collectively just give up.