• starman2112
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 days ago

      If you can find a more efficient, less expensive way to physically sequester carbon from the atmosphere than letting forests grow, I’m sure there’s a lot of awards you could win

        • starman2112
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          Because if it isn’t cheaper than simply growing trees, the money would be better spent simply growing trees

            • starman2112
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              Try thinking for a second.

              Places where trees don’t grow are probably not the best places for carbon sequestration if you can’t sequester carbon there cheaper or easier than sequestering carbon in trees elsewhere

      • MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        You could cause a massive death event in the West/developed nations plus China and India which would slow things a lot though I’d argue killing billions isn’t the ideal solution.

    • excral@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 days ago

      The point of my comment is that if trees wouldn’t exist, they would seem like some futuristic sci-fi solution too good to be true. Just because something is shiny new tech, it isn’t automatically better. Sure, just planting trees won’t save us if we release all the carbon that is already captured in the form of fossil fuels, but how about we stop releasing all the carbon that is already captured in the form of fossil fuels?