Carbon to Burn

I would argue that this process does benefit many because they're creating fuel without crude oil. It is not only a solution to the so-called dilemma of CO2 in the atmosphere , but to our dependence on foreign oil and oil in general.

Job creation is a poor reason to believe biofuels will offer a better solution. Biofuels require massive amounts of land to generate even close to the amount of energy we need. They drastically affect global food prices as well. The infrastructure you say will create jobs for the economy will be so costly that the fuel prices will be astronomically high to offset these initial investment costs.

This methodology is innovative enough to resolve a few ticks in stock market prices on crude, and may very well reduce gasoline prices overall in the long run. This doesn't resolve the issues of conservation, but seems to implore that there are ways to save existing lifestyles without consequences. I disagree that converting CO2 into gasoline is a better solution to biofuels. Biofuels will require upgraded infrastructure--meaning more job creation overall for the American economy. What makes this methodology less redundant than crude oil for gasoline if it will only benefit few, instead of many?