I have seen a bit on this algae fuel and it looks interesting.

The problem I see is it's just an alternative fuel, which is burned in any case.

What about making timber mandatory in buildings, say a certain percentage. That's carbon trapped for as long as the building stands.

There is also the thought of including carbon in building blocks, can this be done?

I think we must not confuse carbon capture with alternative energy as they are two different approaches.

Bottom line is, were will th jobs come from if we meet the reductions planned and, will we be happy allowing someone else to supply resources.

Rehctub said;
I think we must not confuse carbon capture with alternative energy as they are two different approaches.

Indeed and this is something not generally recognised.
As an example, in worrying about energy we absolutely need coal to
build the infrastructure we need to transition to a new energy regime.
However if the AGW worriers had their way we would have the coal mines
shut down and it would be too late to make the transition.

I recently read something that stated that our present level of CO2 is
only about double that needed for plant growth.
Less CO2 and the plants die.
The best level for CO2 for plants was somewhere about 1500 ppm.
For humans CO2 maximum level was in the many thousands ppm.
So the question that was asked was, "Is reducing CO2 dangerous ?"

Historically it appears that CO2 levels varied widely.
By undertaking major modification of CO2 levels could we trip on a natural reduction ?

If 50% of the population reduces their emissions by 10% and the remaining 50% don't increase their output, then does that not achieve the same result, without the need for a new tax.

If you are a true believer in human induced climat change, and you are passionate about it, what's the problem, so long as the rest of us don't increase our outputs.

Seems logical to me.