Well, from what I can read in the IPCC's Climate Change 2007 Synthesis Report (the un-edited draft, at least), they'd have to pull gigatons of the CO2 out of the atmosphere to have any real effect - and even then, no one's really sure what effect it'd have.

Using the solar furnace is a nifty solution, but I'm worried about the necessary energy input into the equation. Breaking the oxygen bonds takes energy, the hydrogen bonds reforming takes energy, and I didn't see where they're getting the excess hydrogen to get the methane. Sounds like a net energy loss, here.

That'd be offset by allowing the current infrastructure to remain in place a bit longer, but getting more sources of oil coupled with alternative energy sources (read nuclear to electric) sounds much more viable right now.

Not that I want to step on research - this is how we'll get around the problem.

The world will be saved when someone genetically engineers a plant whose fruits are filled with not frutcose nor even glucose, but high-order hydrocarbon chains. Completely inedible, but dude... you can grow your own oil!

Of course, this would require the plant be able to process several orders of magnitude more CO2 than even sugar cane, as well as take in more light and water. And sugar cane can't get enough sunlight to survive outside the tropics, even if the water and CO2 are provided. They would have to be grown under fresnel lenses or something, and have some means to extract energy from the concentrated sunlight without having the cell walls break down from the heat.

Oh well, that's why I'm not a genetic engineer.

When one considers biological reactions, some of the energy needs are thrown out the window due to some of the proteins and their catalytic properties which can seriously reduce the energy of reaction.

The unfortunate part is that manufacturing such long hydrocarbons can create poisonous conditions for the plant itself.

A sufficient waxy coating around the hydrocarbon dumps would keep them out of the rest of the plant. There are plants that produce more dangerous stuff without harming themselves, and obviously the fruits wouldn't be left lying around long enough to poison the soil. It doesn't have to be able to survive in the wild if it's really freaking valuable to humans.

(Of course, I meant sucrose and fructose, not glucose and frutcose. Man, I'm not good with the science these days.)

Potentially more dangerous - but these chemicals (depending on their composition) act in different ways than the toxins the plants produce. Those need to be metabolized to cause problems, whereas these could be solvents.

I'm not saying it's not possible - but what I am saying is that I just don't think it's feasible. My guess is that the energy and economic input necessary far exceeds the output that we'd get. Not only in the energy necessary to make the equations work, but the cost of land (not only for this, but because in order to get needed quantities, I believe we'd have to take away food land causing a price increase there as well), fertilizer, harvesting methodology, processing, and transportation. Nuclear plants should be much, much more efficient.