Which is better for the Earth: Nature-based versus human-made solution?

Abstract

As global warming is gradually pushing the Earth to the climate tipping point, the reduction of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has become more urgent than ever. Many high-tech methods, such as Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies, have been proposed as crucial tools in the fight against climate change. However, this paper argues that the expensiveness and uncertainty of CCS technologies make them not feasibly deployed. Persistent investment in these technologies also reinforces the outdated eco-deficit mindset that prioritizes monetary over environmental values. In contrast, the recent flood in the Sahara desert turned barren areas green, reminding us that nature, when given the opportunity, can have an astonishing capacity to heal itself. Investing billions of dollars in deploying costly and uncertain high-tech solutions while limiting funds for local communities to take care of reliable natural carbon sinks risks depleting humanity's resources to tackle climate change, especially when the tipping points are closed.

Author's Profile

Minh-Hoang Nguyen
Phenikaa University

Analytics

Added to PP
2024-11-14

Downloads
133 (#93,689)

6 months
133 (#32,269)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?