• LoveSausage@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I guess trees aren’t as profitable… Only places these things make sense is where you have an abundance of energy to use. Such as Iceland where they using geothermal

    • girthero@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Im too lazy to look up, but as i understand trees dont remove as much as youd think. I remember one of these plants claimed they could remove CO2 to the equivalent of 1 million trees

      • LoveSausage@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I would like to be proven wrong but to me it just sounds like a sales pitch from some techbros. I believe it when I see it. “A better climate strategy, Jacobson says, would be to simply spend the money on building out renewable energy faster, so that coal and natural gas electricity plants can be retired more quickly”

    • phoneymouse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Read something about that, basically you need land to plant trees on. There isn’t an infinite supply of land for that.