NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/7429562.stm

Giant trees 'to clear excess CO2'

The scientist who coined the term "global warming" in the 1970s has proposed a radical solution to the problem of climate change.

Wallace Broecker advocated millions of "carbon scrubbers" - giant artificial trees to pull CO2 from the air.

Dr Broecker told the Hay literary festival in Powys: "We've got an extremely serious problem.

He added: "It's a race against time and we are just sort of crawling along at a slow pace."

He said some 20 million of the scrubbing devices would be required to capture all the CO2 currently produced in the US.

Looking at countries like Germany and here in the UK the will is developing
Dr Wallace Broecker

But he told the festival: "Okay, you say that's enormous, but we make 55 million cars a year, so if we really wanted to we could. Over 30 or 40 years we could easily make that number."

After addressing the festival, Dr Broecker told the BBC News website that 60 million of the devices would be needed worldwide at an estimated cost of $600bn (£303bn) a year.

The towers would be about 50ft high and 8ft in diameter, and use a special type of plastic to absorb the CO2.

The gas would then be either liquefied under pressure and pumped underground or turned into a mineral.

Political will

Dr Broecker said the most likely location for the towers would be desert areas of the planet.

However, he admitted that such a project faced an uphill struggle.

"If I were a betting man I would bet against it because I don't know if we have the political will to do it," he said.

"But looking at countries like Germany and here in the UK the will is developing."

He said the challenge was to get rapidly developing countries such China, India and Brazil behind the idea.

Interesting.

I like the idea. Admittedly it would take a lot of resources, but it just might work if properly done. And as he says, there's no reason we'd be incapable of it. It'd simply be a matter of the political will to get it done.

so 1/3 the US budget. or 1/15 the US budget if every country contributed about as their share of the worlds GDP.

might work. if we could reduce this in half by reducing Co2 emissions world wide, it would be doable.

to be honest it would die as countries would argue if it should be GDP contribution or Co2 contribution.

Not likely we can get the will to do this until a few cities go underwater.

Okay, intentionally manipulate future climate. But don't come crying to me when Snowball Earth II hits. :p

How much energy would it cost to make those things? And if oil is running out, what will we make the plastic out of?

Yes, but you have to think in the long term. These giant trees will provide habitat to giant birds, giant insects, and worst of all, giant monkeys. If these creatures begin to thrive we may lose our place at the top of the food chain.

I'd be curious as to what the ecological impact of putting those things in the desert would be, actually. Granted, it's sparse, but arid environments do have their own ecological systems and I'm sure a gigantic fake plastic tree is going to have some kind of impact. On the other hand, I'd not be surprised if it could collect moisture, too, and perhaps help with irrigation and farming in the more drought afflicted communities.

Okay, intentionally manipulate future climate. But come crying to me when Snowball Earth II hits. :pI think it'd be IV, rather than II.
And I'm sure we could release the CO2 again if it became too cold ;)

Wouldn't it be easier to just reduce emissions?

Yes it would.

Yes, but you have to think in the long term. These giant trees will provide habitat to giant birds, giant insects, and worst of all, giant monkeys. If these creatures begin to thrive we may lose our place at the top of the food chain.

yes i don't want to have to avoid giant balls of poo flung from the giant monkeys

Wouldn't it be easier to just reduce emissions?

Yes it would.

There is no room for rational thought here. ;)

yes i don't want to have to avoid giant balls of poo flung from the giant monkeys

It would mean the end to civilisation as we know it.

I think it'd be IV, rather than II.
And I'm sure we could release the CO2 again if it became too cold ;)
I'm sorry but we had already turned that carbon dioxide into diamonds.

Course, another solution would be to reduce logging in rainforests and try to increase the amount of trees in the world (and not burning them afterwards).

yes i don't want to have to avoid giant balls of poo flung from the giant monkeys

See to me, that'd be a mark in their favor. :)

See to me, that'd be a mark in their favor. :)

I think this proves conclusively that giant monkeys would be bad for humanity in general.

I think this proves conclusively that giant monkeys would be bad for humanity in general.

Humanity is weak. I will make them strong. Mad, but strong. :)

Humanity is weak. I will make them strong. Mad, but strong. :)

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/1198879603267.png

psh. Everyone know that trees cause global warming. Thats why government and industry is cutting them down. Its not like they would ever do us wrong.

Is it just me, or is the idea of mass-producing plastic trees to combat global warming just a little half-baked?

This has fuck all to do with the discussion at hand, it was just remarkable to me so I'm sharing...sorry...

I apparently had a dream so vivid and convincing that apparenlty involved me living once again in the redwood forest that when I saw this thread after waking up I went, "Sounds great, where I live is the...waaaaaaait a second, I live on a flat, largely featureless island now..."

Dreams that continue to alter your perception of reality for a little while after you wake equals trippy.

I'm sorry but we had already turned that carbon dioxide into diamonds.

We might be cold, but we'd be rich! RICH!

Wouldn't it be easier to just plant real trees?

Wouldn't it be easier to just plant real trees?

No, because heavy industry wouldn't like that and it makes more sense.

It just isn't economically...cool.

No, because heavy industry wouldn't like that and it makes more sense.

It just isn't economically...cool.

Of course. Silly me.

Blooody crazy climate scientists...

Theoretically, shouldn't our hole in the ozone layer help the heat escape? So, everyone, get in your car, and pollute alot so that we can get rid of the whole ozone layer!!!

Wouldn't it be easier to just plant real trees?

need a lot of trees. most of the CO2 absorption occurs from one celled organisms in the ocean.

need a lot of trees. most of the CO2 absorption occurs from one celled organisms in the ocean.

Which are all going to die as the global(and therefore water) temperature rises.

Though I may just be making that up.

Which are all going to die as the global(and therefore water) temperature rises.

Though I may just be making that up.

there tends to be more of them as water temperatures and CO2 levels rise.
It is a natural counter balance. The issue is humans put out Co2 a lot quicker then these organisms can multiple.

there tends to be more of them as water temperatures and CO2 levels rise.
It is a natural counter balance. The issue is humans put out Co2 a lot quicker then these organisms can multiple.

Do they crowd out other organisms?
Or suck oxygen out of the water?

Do they crowd out other organisms?
Or suck oxygen out of the water?

I wouldn't be surprised if they acidified the water, whatever they are.

Do they crowd out other organisms?
Or suck oxygen out of the water?

no they are microscopic and they add oxygen to the water. lots of marine life will eat them.

It will just take them 1,000 years after we stop making Co2 for them to catch up. then they will over do it and we will have a ice age.


though if you dump iron into the ocean it makes them bloom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization

and is a proposed means to counter global warming.

Wallace Broecker is a fucking idiot of truly epic proportions and I hope he runs a foul of mercuric chloride or something similar so we can be rid of his stupidity.

"Hey, I've got a great idea to solve global warming. Let's build millions of scrubbers to filter stuff out of the air and then throw away everything collected at a huge cost in time, energy, materials, and money to the developed and developing world."

I'm not against reducing pollution or removing it from the environment, I'm not against environmental protection. I am strongly against pointless, gimmicky bullshit, especially when there are better ways to go about what needs to be done.

Wallace Broecker is a fucking idiot of truly epic proportions and I hope he runs a foul of mercuric chloride or something similar so we can be rid of his stupidity.

"Hey, I've got a great idea to solve global warming. Let's build millions of scrubbers to filter stuff out of the air and then throw away everything collected at a huge cost in time, energy, materials, and money to the developed and developing world."

I'm not against reducing pollution or removing it from the environment, I'm not against environmental protection. I am strongly against pointless, gimmicky bullshit, especially when there are better ways to go about what needs to be done.
So I'm guessing this is actually a bad idea?

Lol knowing the US, if it's even going to be considered, it's because politicians will use this project as an excuse to give their sponsors money. This will simultaneously drive the country into a huge deficit to generate fear, and therefore make cutting education and social security justified. News can also be boardcast about how "other" countries are producing the CO2 as propaganda to create enemy mentality, the same way that US try to blame China for the global food crisis.

There's simply no way you can do the same by cutting emission or planting trees.

So I'm guessing this is actually a bad idea?
Yes. This is actually a bad idea. A very bad idea.

I am getting a little tired of talking about vertical farming as a solution to atmospheric degredation, world hunger, and now, high fuel prices, but I suppose I can go through it once more. With feeling!

A vertical farm works like this: say you've got a plot of productive land that churns out X bushels of corn a year. Because winter's coming you can only grow one maybe two harvests in before the field frosts over and everything green dies or goes dormant.

Now let's say you decide to build a greenhouse on top of that plot of land so that you can grow all year and get in four to six times what you'd get normally. Sounds great except that you'll be depleting soil that much quicker so you'll need to start rotating or find a way to grow without burning through your soil. That's where hydroponics comes in.

So now you've solved the soil problem by using water (and fertilizer) on the crops' roots without dirt. Production is up and you've got seasonal produce year round. You can also increase the CO2 concentration within the enclosed structure to increase your yeilds. Things are looking up but you're still a greedy bastard so you want to further increase the productivity of your land. How? Build up. Adding just one on top of the other doubles your land's productivity. And your crops' appetite for CO2 and water.

Water can be procured from the oceans and boiled or filtered until clean enough to drink. With more nuclear power there will be a reduced demand for coal and a boost in electricity which would be needed to run the lights in said towering farms after sundown. Coal can be liquefied into regular unleaded, though it's really only profitable to do so when oil is above $40 a barrel. The CO2 from the "coal gas" being burned in todays cars could be used to boost food production in the farms. This can all be done with technology that is available today and fairly cheap without a significant impact on personal lifestyles and would give time to further develop and deploy fledgling technologies like solar and electric cars with standardized battery packs.

CO2 scurbbers aren't a bad thing so long as what they collect is put to good use. I know it won't fit in a sound bite but real answers seldom do.

We should find an alternative energy source and then convert CO2 from the air + some water into methanol which we can then use as liquid fuel for cars and whatnot (in fuelcells). I think that's doable.

Look no further!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0407-possible_fix_for_global_warming.htm
"But what makes it cost effective? The algae can be harvested and made into biodiesel fuel and feed for animals."

Someone already mention planting actual trees already, which of course is just a mad scheme.
What we really need is more dramatic ideas, like blotting out the sun with giant mirrors or dumping tons of iron into the sea.

Look no further!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0407-possible_fix_for_global_warming.htm
"But what makes it cost effective? The algae can be harvested and made into biodiesel fuel and feed for animals."

They also have isolated and grown strains of algae that under proper conditions can generate hydrogen directly! *nod*

Someone already mention planting actual trees already, which of course is just a mad scheme.
What we really need is more dramatic ideas, like blotting out the sun with giant mirrors or dumping tons of iron into the sea.

cost wise dumping iron into the sea is the cheapest way.

What we really need to do is mine comets for ice and dump the ice into our oceans.
Right after disposing of our garbage by launching a giant ball of it into space.

How much energy would it cost to make those things? And if oil is running out, what will we make the plastic out of?

People.

I think it would be a better idea to:

1. Let the oil run out - that will reduce carbon emissions far more than any voluntary program, any market program, and certainly more than any government program.

2. Grow algae. You'll pull far more CO2 that way, and you don't have to do much to get it to grow.

People.

I think it would be a better idea to:

1. Let the oil run out - that will reduce carbon emissions far more than any voluntary program, any market program, and certainly more than any government program.

2. Grow algae. You'll pull far more CO2 that way, and you don't have to do much to get it to grow.

most of the Co2 comes from coal. and there is still a few hundred years of that left.

cost wise dumping iron into the sea is the cheapest way.

And no unforeseen consequences possible!

There is no room for rational thought here. ;)

Finally, some truthful statements about AGW alarmism. Quite refreshing.

What we really need to do is mine comets for ice and dump the ice into our oceans.
Right after disposing of our garbage by launching a giant ball of it into space.

Futurama FTW!