I assume that I'm missing something here, because it seems so obvious to me.
CO2 (and most other GHG gasses) result from the combustion of hydrocarbons which are really stable- they are mostly millions of years old. So we need something that can be stored for millions of years. CO2 does not cut it- it is a gas that tends to escape, so stuffing it underground is not a long term viable solution. Ideally, we need a machine that inhales CO2 and poops out pure carbon- like diamonds or graphite. It could include hydrogen and oxygen too, providing it is stable- like anthracite.
Perhaps you see where this is going now.
We take carbon, burn it, get energy and emit CO2. CCS means we take that CO2 and transform it back into carbon....kind of like perpetual motion....Kolbert's New Yorker article says we can do it if we use non-CO2 emitting energy, like PV. She says a solar farm the size of Nigeria would do it. This is a daunting prospect, but it pales in face of the real problem- we currently have no machine that will inhale CO2 and exhale carbon. She interviews a scientist working on the problem. He is an alumnus of the fusion project.....he gave up fusion because it is too hard.....Please, somebody, explain how I am wrong.