>>11847166>It's not. Remember how you needed more land to grow the food to feed the people than you did to grow the bamboo?My plan simply combines some of that with doing nothing which by definition makes it more efficient and better in every way since your plan is so insanely self destructive that doing nothing is automatically better.
>Free is too much, huh? You get 0.1% for free, that might as well be nothing, in fact that's exactly what it is, simply doing nothing with extra steps. The actual plan to match the results of doing nothing at 224 billion would costs trillions.
>Or do you just hate to acknowledge that adding charcoal to soil increases the volume?Do you just hate to admit that 72k per acre is insane price no farmer would ever pay?
>That's one of the ways that amending farmland with charcoal indirectly saves money.It literally does not, it costs 72k to do, it increases the food price by at least factor of 20.
Read this slowly. Increasing the price of food by 20 fold doesn't save money
>which was a strawmanThat is not a strawman, that is what would happen.
>Amending land in this way increases the amount of arable land over timeWhile destroying the food price leading to starvation as desperate farmers try to recoup costs
>not decreases itIt takes 120% of all arable land on the earth to grow the bamboo, it massively decreases the overall farmable area.
>"my plan" isn't to make these amendments mandatory noThen they simply don't happen, most farmers would rather kill themselves than buy a plot of land and then spend 72k trying to fix it. No one is going to rope themselves into a project that takes 300 years to pay off.
Again who will pay for it if it's mandatory?
Why would anyone do it if it's not?
These are simple questions
