if you have to pay any amount comparable to a low-end car: maybe.
any more than that and the answer becomes: highly unlikely.
but whether or not this is a good idea or efficient under any definition of the word? idk. probably a bad idea, too consumer oriented for a problem that could be better tackled on a larger scale
Computers were once huge and slow and inefficient, but now for example we have Raspberry Pi which is orders of magnitude faster, cheaper, smaller, and more energy efficient than most computers 15+ years ago.
This new carbon capture tech could see similar gains.
just because you can drive one "artificial tree" around doesnt mean you should pursue in making those on a scale fit to dent the problem, because in making those "trees" you just release more dead-tree-gas and make the problem worse before you can make it better.
Where did I specify the point in time when this would be practical?
> nobody is telling anyone to stop improving shit
Look up "vitriolic". Also ask yourself why you are so angry at a stranger's neutral comments. This kind of interaction does not make the internet a better place.
im just stating the obvious, idk why you feel the need to defend this, but if you are affiliated with the team then just go back to the drawing board and dont waste your time trying to talk people into liking this. it's a sensationalist claim, obviously people will dispute it.