Great article. Most of the tech proposed by the stranded asset owners is distraction or attempts to get funding for current tech used in the oil biz.

Unfortunately, considering the amount of "fossilized" CO2 we humans have reintroduced into the living environment, I suspect we will be required to do some sort of carbon capture simply to avoid the even more extreme outcomes in the future. That said, "direct" capture from the atmosphere using "cheap" energy is and will probably continue to be economically unfeasible for decades.

Indirect carbon capture through reforestation and land based biofuel agriculture probably makes some sense, but it is still very slow.

Since it has really been the oceans which through absorption of most of the CO2 from the atmosphere slowed the effects of global warming, it makes sense to me that the most effective carbon capture technology would be the one that decreases carbon in the oceans such that they are net able to absorb more from the atmosphere.

So thinking along those lines, probably biofuels and polymers from "seaweeds", establishing marine agriculture/industry would be a more effective route for carbon capture. (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jctb.6443)

What do you think? Could you estimate how big these seaweed farms would be to have a global effect?