3 ms·

I dunno. $1T buys a lot of land - if we assume the amount of forest needed to reduce 10B tons of CO2 over 10 years is 50 million acres, $1T would pay $20,000/ac

I dunno. $1T buys a lot of land - if we assume the amount of forest needed to reduce 10B tons of CO2 over 10 years is 50 million acres, $1T would pay $20,000/acre. That's way more than a lot of acreage goes for that you could put trees on. Put in that light, spending $1T on some sort of magic engineered CO2 vacuum gizmo that has yet to be fully baked, will probably break down from time to time, and won't scale particularly well seems like a bad investment. No disrespect intended, just doing the math.

tito 3y ago
Carbon removal is on track to be a $1T industry per year. There's that much excess carbon dioxide in the air. The scale that's needed is far beyond what trees can do. And trees have their own complications - carbon release (fires, virus, death), measurement, and attractiveness to chop down and use for other stuff. Trees haven't (yet) been optimized as carbon removal and storage devices. They just happen to be somewhat decent at it, but with some shortcomings. I wrote more about carbon removal in my weekly newsletter here: https://tito.co/posts/do-you-think-we-need-carbon-removal-for-a-stable-climate.html https://tito.co/posts/do-you-think-we-need-carbon-removal-fo...