The title doesn’t capture very well that this is about using CO₂ for bubbling water and similar food usages…
Apart from singling out the CO2 molecules, the problem is that while burning of hydrocarbons releases energy and CO2, the reverse is possible (plants do it, duh) but takes at least as much energy. Also, storing those hydrocarbons somewhere people won’t find and burn them to extract their cheap energy.
In nature, the process takes place over millions of years in peat bogs and oceans but we’ve been doing the reverse for centuries to literally fuel our industrial progress. It will take a sustained effort for at least as long to undo these years of damage. Meanwhile, we can try blocking the Sun with chemicals in the upper atmosphere or something.
This is incorrect. The energy released by burning hydrocarbons is not the same as the energy required to convert carbon dioxide into biomass. The difference is that biomass has lower energy density than hydrocarbons.
The rate at which we burned fuel and the rate at which we undo the damage are not linked. We can remove carbon dioxide either faster or slower as we collectively choose.
Yes, biomass is not coal & oil yet, time and pressure are required for that. We can choose the rate of carbon capture, sure, but storing it faster requires more power and effort. In fact, it is recommended to first try to avoid releasing more CO2 where possible.
