Of course there is
Kelp.
I have read about this possibility over the last decade or so but it never really seems to crystallise into anything. It is always the "technical" solution which must be built "at a cost" which grabs the headlines.
The planet is 2/3 water, so finding a space to grow the kelp is less of an issue and most of that water area is International and not claimed for farming or other uses.
There are issues though. Such as control and management, reducing CO2 is one thing, but the consequences of exponential growth of kelp are another.
When we talk about spending trillions of $ on solutions, then we really do have to start thinking about engineering projects. Large scale solar has opened up possibilities which didn't exist before. Projects which were totally off the scale in terms of probability become viable. Such as spending the money to cut a canal from the ocean to lake Eyrie in Australia; then using very large scale solar to produce desalinated water to irrigate carbon capture agriculture in the area. Equally this is a possibility for the Sahara too. Not to create some mythical ocean but to bring the raw material (seawater), to the area in order to produce the fuel for transition (clean water), for creating a new carbon sink.
Israel is the most advanced in the world for capturing and sequestering water into arid environments in order to create agriculture and make desert land bloom. About time people started talking to them.
At the turn of the century the political atmosphere was all about "cost" and "return on investment" for natural geoengineering solutions. I note that this attitude is starting to change today. Paying Brazil to protect the Amazon is a short term solution which will, in the end, fail. Because there is always more money to be made from destroying the Amazon than the rest of the world is willing to pay to protect it.
Whilst BEV is a good step in the right direction, let us not forget that vehicles are only 1/3 of the problem in the western world and a lot less than that in the undeveloped world. Power, heating and deforestation are 2/3 of the problem and BEV will do absolutely nothing about that. In fact it will exacerbate Power.
As has been said many times on these forums, there is no single solution which you can point at and say "see if you just spend money on that it will fix the problem". There isn't. For 150 years the entire planet has been cutting down, digging up and burning the carbon sinks of the planet. Just like a diet and weight loss, that will not be fixed by simply moderating our consumption. If we want to reduce our CO2 in the atmosphere we need to remove more than we put in. Just like a diet and weight loss.
The problem with AGW and CO2 in the atmosphere is that it has taken the whole planet 150 years to get us to where we are and, rather than slowing down, we are speeding up and emitting more. Simply changing vehicles to Electric then consuming fossil powered fuel in a more efficient way will not fix it. It will extend the final date on which the cost must be paid in lives. But it will not pay the debt in an other way.
The path is totally clear. Move to CO2 neutral consumption of power. Remove the existing CO2 from the atmosphere. We don't have to wait for the first to start on the second. But we have to do Both.
The message is also clear. Biotechnology has the possibility to capture and sequestrate far more CO2 than any politically feasible mechanical sequestration. Bio sequestration has the benefit of being self sustaining, self replicating and incredibly efficient. The problem is that it takes space.
You would assume that the very first place people would have looked to capture CO2 directly from the air would have been places that people don't live. Sadly that requires more money than is currently available to fix the problem.
There was a time, not so long ago, when the political environment was such that no action would ever be taken on a problem until it was 50% of the way to catastrophe. If you equate that to something which is infesting the seas and doubling in size every day; then when the politicians decide to act they have ONE day to fix the problem.
This is analogous to climate change via CO2 emissions. Early and dramatic action would be best and cheapest. In fact nothing really substantial will happen until the possibility of a continued life as we know it is virtually nil.
