IMO, yet-to-be invented tech is the only shot we have. Boundless, nearly-free energy from solar, fusion, or nukes may be the key, 'cause we're going to need a shitload of cheap power to reverse this.
We will need that, but we first need modest amounts of money. There is promising tech, for example, that is basically self-powering. But currently would cost $600/ton to remove carbon from the atmosphere. They need to build a full-size prototype (size of a shipping container), but for lack fo $20,000,000 are unable to do so.
http://www.elephantpodcast.org/episodes/would-you-offset-your-emissions-for-10000-a-year-money-controversy-and-the-many-challenges-of-co2-removalWith existing tech, you could offset your emissions for $10,000/year, except even at that price it's not available, for lack of the $20M.
$10,000 is more than most of us would spend (tragedy of the commons problem). But honestly, if they got this down to $1000, I would sign up tomorrow, tragedy of the commons problem or not. But, in all honesty, $10,000/year would be a really tough nut for me even though I believe that the stakes are high enough to warrant giving up a lot of comfort to make it happen.
Thus far, though almost every scenario deemed possible to succeed in the Paris negotiations runs up against the money obstacle. The Koch brothers lackeys say it's too expensive and won't fund it. The hardline environmentalists say it causes "moral hazard" and won't fund it. The researchers say "Damn your politics, we better get going now or we're screwed." Bill Gates is funding some. But for half the price of a star quarterback, we could make a Rev 1 version of Klaus Lackner's machine.
