this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2025
367 points (98.2% liked)
Technology
73066 readers
2223 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes, burying fertilizer traps biomass CO2 and then they can use that as carbon credit equivalent to claim CO² neutrality.
Of course, there's a reason why fertilizer is an inexpensive source of fixated carbon biomass and this means all fertilizer will increase in price by the amount value of it's CO2 carbon credit equivalent
Then maybe the buried fertilizer will become so valuable that it can be dug out and sold as fertilizer again.
I don't see any problems with this plan !
except the part the planet may be uninhabitable for humans by then due to the massive CO2 we are spewing to get slop from AI...
other than that, no problem at all
Sure, sure but !
“Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders.”
Between the methane that generates and easily obtained phosphorous trapped down there, that's strictly a matter of time, unfortunately.