We don’t need transformation of C, we need transformation of just CO2 in other C based compounds.

I think I’m being too general in my wording, and you’re getting hung up - an issue with typing on mobile is that I abbreviate everything. I mean CO2 sequestration/transformation.

The reason why capture doesn’t really work, is because you need to spend a lot of energy to break CO bonds. Therefore any solution is based on very weak chemical bonds. It means that CO2 desorbes over time, substituted by other gases

Yet we see this in the biological sphere, where CO2 is taken into the plants, the plants die, get broken down, some of the CO2 they transformed into biomass is decomposed, and released as CO2 by the microbial community. Some of it (climate permitting) is transformed into soil organic carbon, which has multiple fractions. Some are short-lived, and readily broken down by the microbial community (more CO2 release); some fractions (humus, or protected SOC) are much longer lived, and result in a net loss from the C system.

All of this is unsurprising, given that this is the natural system, and therefore the system ultimately balances out, due to multiple sources of inputs and outputs.

I agree about cost/energy to break CO bonds, however, the examples I’ve seen seem to indicate that it’s more stable long term.

Biochar seems interesting too, yet that requires a lot of energy input, and soil application has mixed results. You could make biochar, and then stuff it deeper into the soil or into geological formations, perhaps. Better if that biochar comes from food wastes, livestock production wastes etc. than plants.

As I said, it’s a fucking huge problem with a million facets. We’re so categorically fucked…