Corexit's old tag line:"Got a slick? Can't correct it? Corexit!"
New tag lines:
"It's Photoshop for oil slicks."
"Photoshop. With neurotoxins!"
"It's like Photoshop, for the real world, on steroids."*
*if steroids caused internal bleeding, cancer, brain damage, and kidney failure.
BP has done a lot of things for aesthetic reasons, and not all of them are as inconsequential as doctoring photos.
And atmospheric carbon fixation is something of a moot point when we have hundreds of years of reserves of carbon that we are already digging up out of the ground and expelling into the atmosphere as highly concentrated CO2. They will even pay you to take it.
Parent gets to the point. The advantages of plants are: plants provide a service that "They will even pay you" for: pulling waste CO2 out of the atmosphere; plants store solar energy; plants manufacture themselves*; waste oxygen from plants is an essential ingredient to animal life.
Disadvantages: plants are flammable when dry, some have potential to maim when knocked over, some taste icky, the larger ones can be navigation hazards, and many harbor undesirable organisms*.
*Some plants are specially engineered not to harbor undesirable organisms. However, these plants are also usually rendered unable to manufacture themselves.
In about 80 years, just about anyone who likes *anything* now will be dead.
A more important problem for newspapers is that their readers do not fit well with most advertisers' target demographic. People beyond a "certain age," have declining disposable incomes, but even before that their purchasing preferences have ossified to the point where advertising doesn't sway their spending habits. Coupled, these two phenomena suggest that newspapers will increasingly become vehicles for medical coupon distribution. Live readers are nice, but if their purchases are few and their habits are stable, advertisers aren't going to spend money to reach them.
You have a tendency to feel you are superior to most computers.