I dont think wood biomass sequestration can reach the scale we need to remove significant amounts of CO2 compared to algae. Wood also releases carbon dioxide as it decomposes over time, it would need to be pyrolyzed for a more long term form of sequestration.

I'm gonna have to start using GPT more lol. I'd say the first point of being expensive and complex applies to any climate change solution so its more a matter of relative complexity and cost. Number 2 makes sense, the used water from the algal bloom would still have to go back to the water treatment system, but it might be easier to clean since it no longer contains nitrates and phosphates. I'm not sure if 3 would matter since we wouldn't have any other aquatic life existing in the bloom. 4 was surprising to me, I didnt know algae could release methane and nitrous oxide, that would definitely have to be avoided.

True that, but afterwards we will need to remove the existing CO2 in the air to return the climate back to normal. Mass transit is definitely the most effective way to prevent cars from impacting the environment, I was just using cars as a unit of measurement for CO2.

That sounds about right, the numbers I've read shows an acre of algae offsets about 225 cars worth. But I actually think this is a pretty big number though when considering how much area we have available to us, including what's covered in ocean water. And in comparison it takes 240 trees to offset the CO2 of one car.

I think the major advantage the last of us has is being on a streaming platform that most people have access to. In comparison breaking bad was on a lesser known channel during it's show run. I think the last of us will get more viewership during it's run, but compared to breaking bad I don't expect as many people to watch after it ends.