Comment on Entropy? Never heard of it.

• starman2112@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ 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

  source

  • ThunderclapSasquatch@startrek.website ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Why does it have to be cheaper? Why not both?

    source

    • starman2112@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

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

      source

      • ThunderclapSasquatch@startrek.website ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        And places trees don’t grow?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ 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.

    source
• excral@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ 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?

  source