• Spzi
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Or hype tree planting less, and rely more on industrial solutions. Or use tree planting, but make sure the plant matter is stored underground frequently, so it cannot get back into the atmosphere. Or weigh in other arguments and realize this risk of unreliability is not that big and acceptable.

      Or write a snarky comment and do nothing!

      • Foggyfroggy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve been waiting 30 years for industrial solutions but it is obvious that marketing and advertising to maintain the status quo of legacy companies is still a better roi.

        This is a regulatory issue not a market failure.

        Also I’m sure plastic recycling on a large scale is just around the corner. The plastic packaging on my plastic products keeps saying so. (/s)

        • Spzi
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          it is obvious that marketing and advertising to maintain the status quo of legacy companies is still a better roi.

          Yes, sadly.

          This is a regulatory issue not a market failure.

          I think it’s both. Emitting is practically free, and removal means costs, not profit. The economic incentives are to emit, not to remove. The external costs of emissions are not covered. This is a distorted market and a market failure. And this market failure can be fixed by regulations, for example carbon pricing, or subsidizing effective carbon removal. Both are still under threat from marketing and advertising, or lobbying.