> It's a shame we suck at acknowledging the obvious inefficiencies in our systems Plants a significantly extremely inefficient at capturing carbon compared to

> It's a shame we suck at acknowledging the obvious inefficiencies in our systems Plants a significantly extremely inefficient at capturing carbon compared to industrial technology like carbon capture using Calcium Hydroxide. > we'd free up huge amounts of land which we could use now to plant rapid growing, carbon-capturing plants You severely underestimate the problem and overestimate the ability of trees to fix it. Planting trees doesn't scale to the levels required to make any difference even if we used all land on Earth. It would take around ~2 trillion trees planted per year just to offset the 40-50 gigatons of CO2 being pumped out per year. That is around ~2 billion acres of land - is more than the entire land area of the contiguous US - every year, just to break even. Ref: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38187573 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38187573