These editorial decisions are always difficult, but it's bizarre that uncontroversial corrections to this argument have to be published in an opinion article in another journal...

As per the opinion piece, high-profile low-credibility science can be extremely damaging and needs correcting 🌊

Most of these problems are likely from poor quality analytical work, but then there are more concerning and difficult questions about whether the authors properly represented their data... In any case, Nature Geoscience hasn't accepted any comment on the paper, and doesn't (ever?) retract papers...

Yes. We certainly need that, and it can be done, but many of the barriers to decarbonization are not technological. We have the technology to almost completely decarbonize transport and power generation, and it some places this is being rolled out fast, but elsewhere nowhere near fast enough...

Maybe a stupid question- are these mCDR numbers only activities which are credited as mCDR? The 'riverine alkalinity addition' seems very low, I assume it does not include runoff from agricultural liming, or waste treatment procedures which add alkalinity routinely (e.g. sewage, aquaculture waste?)