The article puts it up as a question about whether this practice is worthwhile since the only logical solution to climate change is to de-carbonize. Personally I think that question isn’t very nuanced, certainly de-carbonizing 100’a of tons from the atmosphere from just this one plant is a small net positive. Can’t let it be an excuse to keep rolling coal in your F750’a but I’m still in favor of sucking as much carbon out of the air as we can.

  • gens@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    A guy in india is also removing carbon… by planting trees for decades now.

      • wischi@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sadly not really. It’s basically impossible to offset our CO2 emissions with trees unless we cut those trees down, store them underground like nuclear waste, plant new trees and repeat that a few times.

        • Zeth0s@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is just because we produce too much co2, not because it’s not the best way. We should reduce co2 production and increase transformation via photosynthesis

        • bobman@unilem.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s complete bullshit.

          Where do you think oil even comes from? It’s mostly dead plants.

          The idea that trees or other plants ‘release’ all their CO2 back into the atmosphere when they die is a load of bullshit and needs to stop being perpetuated.