Taylor wrote:

Technological implementation is happening as part of the standard of Return On Investment.

Robert Wrote:
I don’t agree. Investors are conservative, and lack the patience required to risk venture capital for new interdisciplinary concepts. There is a severe market failure when it comes to climate change, corrupted by the politics of the dogma of emission reduction.

Here I'm referencing electric utilities, but you are correct in the sense that there is not a wide spread rush towards zero green house gas emission technologies, Energy corps. as yet are not under the gun to implement, but they do recognize their days are numbered, I and Energy are aware that if profits dwindle so will implementation of zero emission tech. As it is now the energy industry, and fossil fuel industry as you say own politics, but I think it has more to do with a gov't that lacks real understanding of the machinations of energy or a true desire too know industry concerns, and so are subject to be misinformed and ready to just plain make bad choices, it truly can be political. I agree that there is a hang-up on reduction, Industry knows this and they do use it to their advantage. I have seen first hand what gov't agencies have seen from utility consultants and I have been told by persons present at the meetings the choices NCR agencies have decided to implement, The worst choices are made in the name of expedience, or a desire to avoid politics, even bureaucrats dislike politicians to the point that as long as something works its better than going to the hill.

There is nothing at all wrong with increasing demand for energy,

I really am not concerned with increased demand, in fact like you I think there are benefits.

as long as it can be delivered in ways that protect biodiversity

This here, to me, gets to the heart of the matter, I don't see it as necessary to sell carbon capture as a solution to environmental concerns, I think carbon capture stands on its own, that is if it can demonstrate a profitable commodity, the obvious byproduct being ecological good, to me that just adds to commercial appeal.

Global Co2 elimination as a byproduct of commodity production, (as apposed to greenhouse gases as byproduct of energy consumption) is a winning combination, one that would have reductionist, the Ayn Rand crowd and deniers all being the first to cue up for the IPO, not mining Co2 from the atmosphere when, as now there is such abundance of it there, just seems an opportunity lost.

Robert wrote:
Neutrality means removing as much carbon as we add to the air and sea. In fact we have to go beyond neutrality into Negative Emission Technology (NET), since the current level of CO2 is highly dangerous.

Why do the utilities and fuel industry's the favor, But hey, its fun doing the right thing, so at first pull all those extra gases from the air, then back off, remember its symbiotic you'll need what they'll give for free.

Urgency is hindered for ideological reasons, not for practical reasons.

What's wonderful here is that in the case of environmentalism through commodification, ideologies are overcome by the urgency for the long term capital growth of investor portfolio's.