My wife and I went in summer nearly 50 yrs ago. Spent 4 nights in the park. 2 nights tenting in the back country (where I freaked my wife by reading from Night of the Grizzlies); 1 night at🌟 Sperry Chalet www.sperrychalet.com (much cheaper then & with the glacier; 1 night in the park lodge.🌟🌟🌟🌟

Philip Larkin didn’t get it.

Fortunately, I am in no immediate need of blankets.

It is correct that *talking* about CCS and CDR is greenwashing. Our job is to move past talking about it, to requiring it for any emissions not avoided by other means. Adopting that policy today would drive a lot more wind, solar, efficiency to minimize the firm’s CCS obligation.

We can’t do CCS instead of viable emission avoidance measures. It is an ADDED tool in the toolbox. And yes, it must be designed and operated for 1000+ year retention. CCS use today for EOR is due to policy failure, not technology constraints.

Job 1 is to minimize cumulative CO2, starting today: we need massive deployment of today's tools (wind, solar, efficiency) and rapid development of currently costly additional tools like CCS and CDR. We are running both a sprint and a marathon.

The paper you cite argues FOR geologic injection of captured CO2 as the required method to prevent warming from residual and historic CO2 emissions.

Trapping mechanisms for injected CO2 are well understood. Highest leak risk is during injection phase, when CO2 plume is buoyant. Solubility trapping ends the bouyant phase--5ish decades after injection. That's the period we need active rules to prevent leaks. www.geo.arizona.edu/~reiners/geo...

would love to see the GANTT chart

Kemper was an economic and policy failure. Economic because with lower gas prices it turned out to be cheaper to never operate the coal gasifiers and just run the unit on gas. Policy failure because with no CO2 emission limits, running on gas with no capture was legal.