if we cut emissions to zero today, we have suppressed not just the next glaciation but the next two.
As for large scale carbon sequestration, we have to sequester for geological time, at least on the order of hundreds of millennia. So I'll believe it when the first few dozen million tons gets sequestered into long lived geological repository. Together with funding mechanisms for loooong term monitoring. What those mechanisms might be, i have no idea, considering that the oldest continuously extant human organization is the Vatican at 2Kyr or so.
CO2 drawdown effort will be much larger than the effort we have exerted in digging up all that fossil carbon and burning it. From an energy standpoint alone we need more than the energy we derived from the burning. We need energy source larger than supplied by fossil over the last couple centuries. That on its own will have huge ecological impact, possibly beneficial if soils can be persuaded to help, as some proponents argue. But soils must still be closely monitored for millennia whereas deep geological repositories perhaps need less vigilance,
I do not expect to see that in my lifetime, although that's probably because i'm an old cynic.
sidd
There are Norwegian operations at this scale.
e.g. this publicity piece claims 20 million
https://www.equinor.com/en/how-and-why/climate-change/carbon-storage.htmlIf something claims to be CCS+EOR, its really EOR and you can't trust that the CO2 stays sequestrated, but when its injected into saline aquifers to be sequestrated in order to avoid a carbon tax rather than an oil reservoir to get more oil out, monitoring that its reliably sequestrated is possible, because mineralisation reactions hold it in place chemically rather than relying on a physically sealed well. You just need to monitor it during operation to make sure the mineralisation is actually happening rather than long term.
Norway has operate a high enough carbon tax to make sequestration commercially attractive for CO2 from acid gas reservoirs for a long time, but its not high enough (and seems unlikely to me that it ever will be high enough) to make sequestration from combustion products viable.
Technically its feasible, and provided you don't allow EOR to count as sequestration, and have a reasonably honest government interested in making you pay tax if you aren't doing it properly, it can be effectively monitored.
However, I reckon renewables are now sufficiently competitive that a tax big enough to drive sequestration of combustion products will put fossil fuel operations out of business rather than drive them to sequestrate, so I don't expect CCS to expand beyond the niche Norway's carbon tax created.