I can’t wait until they makes these no cost, low-maintenance, and self-replacing. Oh man, just think of how easy it would be to fix our climate issues!
I can’t wait until they makes these no cost, low-maintenance, and self-replacing. Oh man, just think of how easy it would be to fix our climate issues!
I’m not sure I agree. There’s efficiency gains to be had in the tech, but I think it’s better not to count your chickens before they hatch. In arid climates where trees struggle to grow it makes sense to deploy carbon capture tech, but I think there’s a also a profit motive that muddies the best practices. Nobody gets rich by replanting forests and leaving them alone, but there’s a lot of money to be made in these power hungry facilities.
At the core trees are just a more advanced technology in many ways. They have biological processes that don’t only remove the carbon but build it into useful timber; plus they’re entirely solar powered by default.
There’s also the potential to combine high tech solutions with our existing flora, either through genetic modification or specialized sensor based agriculture. Something isn’t low tech or backwards just because it involves plants, they’ve been scrubbing carbon for millions of years and are valuable tools.
Yes they do get rich by this. When policies are created that allow them to avoid taxes and cleanup because they paid to have trees planted. No trees are a haphazard attempt to maintain existense in a chaotic and wildly changing environment. This is more ‘noble savage’ lines of thought. Just because somethings grows on its own doesnt make it better than something designed and created. And modifying a plant to work inside of technology IS a technological advancement not a natural one. The exact kind of development and evolution i was talking about that is explicitly outside the bounds of natural evolution.