Thanks for reading my article and for your comments. Regarding your first comment, that is correct — no producer gets paid for changing the location of subterranean CO2. However, DAC allows for atmospheric CO2 to be captured and permanently sequestered, which does generate a salable carbon credit.

As to your second comment, in fact, depending on the “lift ratio” (i.e., how tight the oil actually is), CO2 flooding can actually be carbon negative. In other words, pulling out the oil lowers atmospheric carbon levels more than leaving it in the ground. This is somewhat of a special case, of course, but DAC is not at best carbon neutral.

I’ll be doing another article this week related to the difference between DAC and NBS (Natural-Based Solutions — tree planting). In short, I do not disagree with you that we need to cut output, but we also absolutely must reduce atmospheric CO2 levels and the first step of that is to force them to keep from rising. DAC is necessary but not sufficient, in my opinion. We must do quite a lot to restructure the way industrial processes are carried out, the way company managers are compensated, and the way everyday shoppers think about consumption.

All the best,


Written by

Founder of IOI Capital. Passionate about harnessing the power of the free market to solve humanity’s biggest adaptation challenge.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store