> What if we build it out of graphene instead? I think the implication (that carbon negative local materials are unscalable) is unfair. We haven't built anythi

> What if we build it out of graphene instead? I think the implication (that carbon negative local materials are unscalable) is unfair. We haven't built anything huge with graphene yet and the per-gram costs are still crazy (e.g. on the order of $100/g). By comparison, this article is about relatively large-scale projects that we actually did, decades ago. > Between 1954 and 1967, during works on the rivers throughout the country, they sank 1,200,000 km2 fascine mattresses to the bottom. We're in a context where we simultaneously want to: - build and replace infrastructure - decrease our carbon footprint and go negative where possible - protect large coastal areas from storm impacts - prevent further habitat loss and loss of ecological diversity And more recently we have become aware that sprawling international supply chains are a liability. I think more than just concerns over whether something scales at maximum profit, we also have too much institutional inertia. "If we pick different materials, will permitting and oversight bodies be convinced about safety and longevity claims? Will workers need to be retrained? Will the planning process need to change? Better to just do what we've always done; it's easier." To be fair, I suppose I _have_ heard people talk about carbon sequestration in cross-laminated timber for large buildings. I have not heard people talk about being able to source that timber locally, or in a way which is especially beneficial to the land. https://investingnews.com/daily/tech-investing/nanoscience-investing/graphene-investing/graphene-cost/ https://investingnews.com/daily/tech-investing/nanoscience-i...