Why Biotechnology Outperforms Carbon Capture Technology
The Utilitarian Framework
Utilitarianism is the best framework because it asks the right question: which solution maximizes long-term well-being for the greatest number of people?
The opposition focuses on surface-level metrics, but those do not measure the true impact on human well-being. We urge you to prioritize the side that offers deeper, more inclusive, and longer-lasting solutions.
The Feasibility of Biotech Reformation
Bottom-Up Incentives
The reformation process is never a one-way street where the government forces people to change. There are two key incentives:
- Economic Benefits: People will switch to Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) due to their high yield. Farmers using GMO crops globally saw an income increase of $261.3 billion. For every extra dollar invested in GMO seeds, farmers gained an average of $3.76.
- Environmental Concerns: People today care more about the environment. According to the European Commission in 2023, 73% of European customers want to buy eco-friendly products. When people see something as better for the planet, they are more likely to support it and push governments to invest in it. This provides a driver for reformation. For instance, in 2023, biochar accounted for 92.9% of all durable CO2 removal deliveries.
Top-Down Optimization Is Not a Barrier
Biotechnology integrates into existing agriculture. This is not a societal overhaul; it is a targeted optimization.
Addressing Regulatory Hurdles
Redefining Regulation as Support
When a government chooses to prioritize a solution, that usually means they also work to make it legitimate and publicly acceptable. Therefore, the idea that regulation is a permanent barrier does not make sense in our world.
Softening Regulatory Stances
Even if you do not accept our definition, we are already seeing that shift. The EU and 24 other countries are building national bioeconomy strategies that prioritize biotech as a core part of their climate plans.
Biotech’s Adoption vs. CCT Infrastructure
CCT’s Complex Implementation
Carbon Capture Technology (CCT) is not plug-and-play. It requires major infrastructure, and the design and implementation process is complicated, thus increasing time and cost. According to Peak Cluster, the construction of a pipeline is to take around three years. This is a best-case scenario. The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association states that realistic schedules range from 10 to 13 years. This is for only one site, not to mention the entire country.
Biotech’s Rapid Adaptability
For bioproducts and GMOs, what we need is optimization. The first GMO approved for sale was the tomato in 1994. Two years later, by 1996, farmers in six countries had planted biotech crops on 1.7 million hectares. By 2013, biotech crops were grown by 18 million farmers on 170 million hectares in 27 countries.
The Maturity and Potential of Biotech
Proven in Real-World Trials
Biotechnology has already worked in real-world trials.
Maturity Is Not Binary
All technology scales in stages. Currently being in trial and not achieving full-scale adoption does not mean it is immature. Even in trials, biotech is superior because it offers more paths and is easier to scale, while CCT is constrained by geography and electricity access.
A Case for Prioritization
Even with limited investment so far, biotechnology is already showing massive potential. If we invest more and treat it as a priority, we will see even greater breakthroughs.
Biotech’s Impact on Industrial Emissions
Biotech Isn’t Limited to Agriculture
Industrial emissions are more than the factory itself. The construction, transportation, and manufacturing all count. We are driving an even more fundamental change. The UK reported that renewable fuels achieved an aggregated GHG saving of 82% in 2023 compared to fossil fuels.
A Broader Scope
CCT only focuses on one sector and mostly acts as a post-production clean-up tool. Biotech, by contrast, is multi-sectoral. This gives our position a significant advantage in scope.
Managing Environmental and Off-Target Risks
The Risk Is Low
According to Susanna Stroik, a senior scientist at UNC, base editors as of 2023 produce 92% fewer off-target edits and 99.7% fewer insertion and deletion errors compared to older tools. The PLOS Journal reported that in GM wheat, the gene flow rate (or outcrossing) was just 3.4% within fields.
We Have Solutions
Synthetic biology now includes built-in safety switches like suicide genes, which make the organism self-destruct under certain conditions. The entire point of modern bioengineering is control, not chaos.
Risks Are Not One-Sided
It is important to consider the risks associated with all technologies being discussed.
Biotechnology and Land Use Efficiency
Not All Biotech Requires New Land
Many biotechnological applications do not require additional land.
Reducing Land Pressure
When you grow more food per acre, you do not need to expand farms. GMO corn varieties increased yields up to 24.5% relative to non-GMO equivalents. Therefore, we are expecting a nearly 25% reduction in current land use. This is a win-win situation: with this high efficiency, GM crops increased global crop productivity by $261.3 billion. We can simultaneously protect the environment and improve economics.
The Cost-Effectiveness of Biotechnology
Cheaper Per Unit of Impact
Biochar, a carbon-rich substance from plant matter, costs only $80 to absorb one tonne of CO₂. Under optimistic scenarios, the costs of carbon-eating microbes are projected to fall to $225 per ton of CO2 captured.
In comparison, Direct Air Capture (DAC), a type of CCS, is more expensive, with costs reaching up to $1,000 per ton, not to mention the resources they consume, like electricity.
Price Drops with Maturity
Costs will continue to fall due to maturing technology and market growth.
Why CCS Costs Remain High
High Design Complexity
In the case of CCS, high design complexity involves multiple interactions between components, which makes technological innovation more difficult.
High Need for Customization
Some components will need to be tailored to specific applications, geological conditions, and local supply chains. The mass production they claim cannot be achieved.
Biotechnology as a Driver of Economic Growth
Improved Crop Yields
From 1996 to 2020, GM crops contributed to an additional 330 million tonnes of soybeans and 595 million tonnes of maize production globally. GM technology increased crop yields by an average of 22% globally.
Improved crop yields lead to lower food prices because of supply and demand. The economic impact is massive: lower food prices reduce inflationary pressure, especially in agriculture-dependent economies.
Employment Opportunities
The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that the biobased products industry created 4.2 million jobs in a single year, which accounted for 15% of the jobs created that year. Considering there is a booming bioproduct sector, we are expecting to see even more job openings now.
Global Accessibility and Adoption of Biotech
Developing countries can adopt biotech affordably because these are optimizations, not barriers. Biotechnology integrates into existing agriculture, much like switching fertilizer types, seed varieties, or feed additives.
In contrast, CCS is not the same. Their claim that infrastructure can be improved is a contention that backfires. CCS requires long-term investment. In developing nations, where immediate returns are often prioritized, securing political and public support for such projects is a significant challenge. This could lead to political movements and, in turn, a more unstable country.