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.
Comment on Entropy? Never heard of it.
starman2112@sh.itjust.works 4 days agoIf 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
MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world 4 days ago
ThunderclapSasquatch@startrek.website 4 days ago
Why does it have to be cheaper? Why not both?
starman2112@sh.itjust.works 4 days ago
Because if it isn’t cheaper than simply growing trees, the money would be better spent simply growing trees
ThunderclapSasquatch@startrek.website 3 days ago
And places trees don’t grow?
starman2112@sh.itjust.works 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