"find a way to suck co2 out of the atmosphere and place it somewhere"

That's what forests do, and we're cutting them down with alacrity.

Also, I don't think you're done the "number of humans" x "energy consumption of suv + mcmansion" + "carbon density of likely fuel sources" math yet. It is simply impossible to sustain.

More trees and plant cover can help in the short term, but it's not going to solve the long term problem because those trees will break down and release the CO2 they've captured. This wasn't always the case as the ability for microbes and fungi to break down trees evolved later, which is how many of those coal deposits were created in the first place.

The main benefits from forest are habitats for wildlife, prevention of erosion, and ways to improve biodiversity. Their benefits to climate change are limited to reduced sunlight absorption because of their higher reflectivity and a small amount of a carbon sink if they take over land that was cleared and turned into plains, or farms or whatever.

Yup, fully aware of the Carboniferous period. But in a world with fungi, the CO2 is still trapped as the living trees and as trees die they are replaced with new ones. There is a steady state equilibrium.

I am not pro SUV or pro mcmansion

i am pro forest

Me too! Wasn't implying otherwise :)

Sweet!! It is a funny situation, isn't it? We have a natural organism that does quite literally suck CO2 out of the air and replace it with O2, which we just so happen need to breathe.

and yet many actors from many different societal origins are chopping down trees for furniture, building, fuel, etc etc. If the answer is as simple as "hire a bunch of people to plant trees", then it makes one wonder why money hasn't been diverted for this either at a governmental or charity level

Seems promising: Meet the Scientist Turning CO2 Into Ethanol - http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/green-tech/interview...

It is just a battery, and not a very good one. The energy efficiency is only 20% - meaning you have to use 4 times the energy to run the reaction and convert the CO2 as you will get from burning the ethanol. And of course burning the ethanol releases the CO2. If you want to sequestor carbon I don't think this is a promising route to take.

Great, thank you! this would help put a dent in climate change AND land use complaints surrounding ethanol :)

We already have this technology, they're known as CO2 scrubbers.

I have a bad memory but I seem to recall Sergey Bring or Larry Wall or someone "important in technology" saying that this is basically already a solved problem -- heavily investing in to CO2 scrubber technology, hooking the things up via solar, and deploying them across the world's deserts -- but that todays problem is that leadership problem you mentioned. No one (Government) wants to foot the bill.