While the paper is timely and forward-looking, it raises important questions about the broader environmental and infrastructural implications that remain unaddressed.
A key concern is the implicit assumption that the deployment of 6G-IoT systems inherently results in net environmental benefits. The paper outlines a range of sophisticated tools, quantum sensing, four-dimensional communication, massive machine-type communications, and digital twin applications, all under the 6G umbrella. However, it does not critically examine the environmental footprint of producing, deploying, and operating such energy- and resource-intensive technologies, especially at scale.
This is particularly pressing when considering deployment in rural or developing agricultural regions, where energy infrastructure is often limited and technology adoption faces socio-economic barriers. In such contexts, the paradox becomes clear: can a technology-intensive solution aimed at sustainability inadvertently undermine its own environmental objectives by introducing new forms of energy consumption and material demand?
In essence, while the integration of 6G-IoT into agriculture holds transformative potential, its promise as a GHG mitigation strategy cannot be fully assessed without a life cycle perspective on the technologies themselves. Future work should incorporate environmental cost–benefit analyses, life cycle assessments (LCAs), and regional feasibility studies to ensure that technological optimism is grounded in holistic sustainability thinking.