If your co2 is high why not just some houseplants?
Seems like a few snake plants would easily handle that level.
https://balconygardenweb.com/most-effective-co2-absorbing-ho...
Seems like a few snake plants would easily handle that level.
https://balconygardenweb.com/most-effective-co2-absorbing-ho...
"In a study at Naresuan University, Phitsanulok, Thailand, the snake plant can absorb CO2 at 0.49 ppm/m3 in the closed system."
That would require an enormous number of snake plants to do anything. A tiny apartment is 50m^2 * 3m = 150 cubic meters, so it requires 300 snake plants just to bring down by 1ppm (though not sure over what timescale or other assumptions in the work cited)
Because you need to take time into account and it's more coherent with the result of other studies (an optimist case with good sunlight but 0.4ppm/m3/m is ok I guess for young plant).
'The approximate amount of carbon exhaled by a single human in 1 d is 300 g, whereas the carbon content of 1 L of gasoline is 640 g. In comparison, a single Spathiphyllum in a 15-cm pot grown at a PPF of 20 mmolm–2s–1 fixed 0.8 g C per day, so it would take 400 plants to offset a single human or 845 plants to offset a gasoline use of 1 Ld–1.'
[1] https://www.realhomes.com/news/do-house-plants-remove-carbon...
Planting more plants is at least a step in the right direction. Everything else is more or less simply turning it into someone else's problem.
You're right that the practical consideration is important. It needs to be addressed and engineered to be made practical.
On top of that maybe we eat too much, but that's a off topic.