Synthetic Trees Set To Combat Climate Change
Posted July 3rd, 2009 by simon
While creating a bunch of plastic trees may not sound like a great way to protect the environment that is the proposal being put forward by a Columbia University professor who is working with the U.S. Energy Secretary. The fake trees provide more than just an aesthetic though and like their real counterparts they absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The difference is that these synthetic trees are 1,000 times faster at collecting CO2 than real trees. Plastic leaves trap the CO2 and compress it, storing it internally in the trunk as a liquid.
The cost is still unknown but it is likely to pretty high and they estimate it to be around the price of a car. The trees could be stored anywhere and moved around as needed and with carbon emissions constantly rising the need to combat this trend is immense and desperate according to many. Each tree would apparently be capable of pulling in a ton of CO2 every day.
July 3rd, 2009 at 6:03 pm
i feel like this is completely the wrong attitude towards global warming.
July 3rd, 2009 at 6:07 pm
I agree with what j said, i think that its important to reduce before we begin installing fake trees that just collect co2, its not like real trees where it actually produces oxygen from CO2
July 3rd, 2009 at 6:07 pm
They also have these other inventions that do something similar. They’re called “Maple Trees.” Pretty cheap to manufacture too.
July 3rd, 2009 at 6:09 pm
What a stupid idea, gee I wonder how much CO2 will be released producing them and then transporting them from one location to the next. Much easier and cheaper to plant a bunch of trees. The only thing these might be useful for is if we are invaded by giant flies.
July 3rd, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Anytime a solution is provided that involves manufacturing expensive technology, and then storing the potentially dangerous substance in question, it is doomed to fail.
This is a band-aid solution at best. We all need to change our ways, not produce technology to make our abuse “acceptable”
July 3rd, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Not sure why everyone is so down on this. While we need to combat the production of CO2 as well, this seems like a good idea for reducing local CO2 levels in specific areas. It seems like common sense to try and find ways to lower CO2 levels any way we can.
July 3rd, 2009 at 6:46 pm
It still amazes me that most people still think that
a. Man has an effect on global temperatures
b. We need to do something about climate change (a naturally occurring phenomenon)
c. Taxing carbon emissions is a good thing
July 3rd, 2009 at 6:50 pm
I wonder how much co2 these create when making them. What do you do with the carbonised liquid inside the trunk?
I’d be more in favour of this technology if these trees also created power or Oxygen. Or even if it created a non polluting fuel source.
It is a good idea though and worth pursuing as it expands our knowledge. We may need something like this if we get really desperate. Why design them to look like trees? Can we put them on buildings like solar panels?
I agree with the previous comments about technology not being the solution. And yes real trees will be much cheaper and keeps our biodiversity. Though they do take a while to grow.
July 3rd, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Laszio check out this link. On the one hand you may be correct but as this study shows though the ice caps do naturally shrink and expand the overall evidence that this study covered is that there does seem to be a marked increase in temperatures.
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html
If you have information as well I’d love to check it out.
chris
July 3rd, 2009 at 7:42 pm
I hate to be the one to point this out, mostly because of the flames which may result:
But the earth is warming up. The planet’s climates are changing. Things have changed a lot since the industrial revolution. For those who disagree I’d invite you to get your head out of the sand and do a little more research.
IF these things work, and are viable, why wouldn’t we use them to help counteract industrial waste? Sure, it might mean some storing liquid CO2 until a use for it can be found, but that’s better than having it float free to wreak havok, right?
July 3rd, 2009 at 10:25 pm
I agree with you Jonathan, if it resolves the issue of excessive CO2 then it has my vote.
Just like the people who opposes wind turbines because they are “an eyesore,” if they help the environment then surely that is the important thing.
July 4th, 2009 at 1:00 am
while this may not be the best solution, it does provide an alternative to real trees. this is a great help for areas where trees struggle to grow. some are forgetting the cost of growing trees. the primary cost of which is water, which must be pumped or diverted to the trees you wish to grow. in many cases water comes from a public water system, which are required to meet public health and safety requirements. most water pumps and treatment equipment run on electricity produced by coal, nuclear, or (if your lucky) solar, hydroelectric, and wind. the world is not perfect but something like this would not be taken serious if the benefit were minimal. i would hope that these fake trees are self-sufficient requiring only to be installed and maybe have the CO2 collected.
July 4th, 2009 at 3:50 am
My biggest concern is the massive media hype around ‘Global Warming’ and the amount of attention so called ‘Green Technology’ gets.
I am not against renewable or alternate energy, in fact I think it’s a step in the right direction. We must protect ourselves from pollution and contaminants which can do us harm.
BUT
Calling something ‘Green’ since it uses less carbon when in use, without taking into consideration the cost (in pollution) to research, develop, prototype and produce these products are absurd. Much like fuel efficient vehicles, the amount of reduction of emissions may not offset the cost of production.
CO2 is too much of a convenient pollutant, we can’t detect it without instruments, it has no color, taste or smell, nor is it in anyway toxic to life. Governments always need a common enemy to rally against, is CO2 the new ‘Terrorist’?
Evidence for Predicting Global Cooling for the Next Three Decades
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783
Water Experts Find Earth’s Warming, Rainfall Linked to Sun
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1873045/posts
Republicans are raising questions about why the EPA apparently dismissed an analyst’s report questioning the science behind global warming.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=31214d37-802a-23ad-4e0c-cfe56aa7d48d&Issue_id=
July 4th, 2009 at 4:08 am
Three Points: (1) Other commenters have said this is some kind of enabler, allowing us to further our bad consumption and pollution habits. I disagree. By that logic we should stop recycling and switch back to leaded gasoline. (2) Some question how much carbon is produced in order to make one of these things. I am going to take a guess and say it is something less than hundreds of tons. That’s what one of these captures in a year. (3) As for what to do with liquified CO2, I say pump it back into those holes we drilled. Remember, we extracted the carbon from the ground in the first place.
July 4th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
I have read all the comments and there is much useful information there but however there is one issue that was not touched upon which is time and ours unfortunately is quickly running out. We have to take drastic measures to reverse situation. I propose that both fake trees and real trees be used. Real trees be used in areas were it is feasible and fake ones be used in areas off high concentrations of Co2 like cities. I also understand that the production of fake trees and there deployment would create Co2 but the capture of Co2 during its production could be achieved by economic help from the government as give incentive to the producers of the fake trees so it would be profitable. I also propose that a economic way of producing Hydrogen if only to power electric generators is found, because the production of electricity is by far the greatest contributor of Co2 to the environment on the planet and the use of Hydrogen as a fuel emits zero Co2.
July 4th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
The ones depicted in he photo are in the desert, where i would not be practical to grow trees. If he goal is to remove CO2 from the air hey may have a role to play. However, using these where trees could grow would be rediculous as trees do much more for the environment than sequester carbon.
However, I tend to agree with Laszlo and am not convinced that CO2 is the devil, nor that global climate change is under our control. I’ve looked through the evidence and do not see anything conclusive. In fact I find the solar activity explaination more compelling. What really bothers me is that there is no open discussion about it. A theory of this importance should be debated in an open forum and unorthodox theories should have their chance to be supported and disputed. Science is not meant o exclude alernate theories before hearing them out, but i appears that is what is happening. You also dont hear much about the fudged/flawed models that were used. Things just dont seem right.
I was only the 1970s that people thought he Earth was cooling and hat we would freeze, it was even on the cover of Time (I think i was Time). They seemed pretty confident, but were wrong. Are we really that much beter now that we should dismiss the alernatives.
July 4th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
This comment is to Kron, I really do not understand you statement on that Co2 is not the problem. I ask you to investigate the solar system for the answer. The hottest planet in our solar system is not Mercury which is closet to the sun but in fact Venus. Researchers have found that the high temperatures is due to a run away green house effect which because of the high levels of Co2 and other trace gases which prevent the suns energy from leaving the planet. By our using gas and fossils fuels which create Co2 we are creating our own green house effect. I ask you this why would the polar ice caps be melting at a alarming rate but for global temperatures rising. I think it is a no brainer
July 4th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
We’re not capturing cobalt (II) (Co2) but Carbon Dioxide (CO2), asshole. Anyways, I agree with the initial people to comment on this article in that this is a band-aid fix. It is only a short term solution with no plan on how to resolve the problems it may cause. We are not producing oxygen with this captured CO2, but just storing it, with a possibility of (shortsightedly) throwing it in some hole somewhere as was suggested earlier by a fellow reader. We ought to look into more bio-mimicry, and possibly find a way to convert it into oxygen after capturing it, rather than storing this pressurised waste waiting for future developments.
peace, doggies.
July 4th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Hey Kizzle I guess your reading comprehension is very limited. I have addressed problems which your little mind cant absorb. I suggest getting someone who can comprehend the written word then explain it to you before your dumbass makes another comment. By the way cobalt is a radioactive isotope when we were talking about that. Wake the fck up the topic is Co2 idiot.
July 4th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
So I stopped reading the comments i think around williams first comment, and I really hope I just spoke to soon But Couldn’t you solve the question of how much carbon is produced in order to make one of these things, by just putting a few of your freshly made fake trees Around the plant that’s making them?
July 4th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Azylum. In order for me to answer that question about how much Co2 is created in the production of a fake tree I would have to be one of the production engineers. Unfortunately I am not. But like I said in my first comment ways to capture the Co2 during the production of the fake tree is possible.
July 4th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
I understand now what your point is your saying that if you put fake trees around the production plants you could absorb the production Co2 ?
July 4th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Azylum, I really respect intelligence Azylum. You have a great idea. This is how problems get solved brain storming. You answer was simple yet probably the best option.
Hope to hear from you again.
July 5th, 2009 at 1:44 am
Thank you.
July 6th, 2009 at 3:49 am
These things are WAY cool! The whole “tree” metaphor is hokey… these things are more like industrial vacuum cleaners.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:08 am
It took me about 4 seconds to find a couple uses for carbon dioxide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Uses
So until they figure out how to convert CO2 into O2 (where’s the carbon going?) with a useful byproduct, I wouldn’t go bashing these fake trees.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
CO2 is good for plants and as a consequence the environment in general. It increases growth rate and the health of plants. (This means more food for us and the rest of nature.)
CO2 has been many times higher in concentration in the Earth’s atmosphere in the past with no ill effects.
It has been proven that previous fluctuations in CO2 levels have FOLLOWED temperature change NOT CAUSED temperature change.
The Earth has been significantly hotter on more then a few occasions in the past. The Earth’s current temperature is nothing unusual nor are the trends in temperature changes anything out of the ordinary.
There is NO CREDIBLE evidence linking CO2 to any warming factor WHAT SO EVER!
The globe has been cooling for the last decade.
Pull your heads out of your collective asses and realize that the CO2 scare is nothing more then a convenient excuse for governments to screw huge amounts of money out of Mr & Mrs Joe Gullible. One of the few ‘pollutants’ that is actually good for the environment and they’re turning into a pariah. The double speak at its finest.
http://www.forfreedomssake.com/blog/2009/06/evidence-of-global-coolingstudy-censored-by-epa/
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/06/is-global-warming-part-of-earths-natural-cycle-mit-team-says-yes.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL9FkkDhOwg
http://whatthecrap.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/30000-scientists-rejecting-anthropomorphic-global-warming-hypothesis/
…the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) will announce that more than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition rejecting claims of human-caused global warming. The purpose of OISM’s Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.
It is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,021 PhDs, are not “a few.” Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,072 American scientists are not “skeptics.”
July 6th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
…so that’s 31000 scientists and 9000 PhD holders compared to what? And do their degrees have any relevance to atmospheric or E&O science?
Just because someone’s a “scientist” doesn’t always give them more credibility than someone who isn’t.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Hey grey, You must be thee biggest idiot ever to be born. You give credence to the idea that people must pass a test to reproduce. If you think that global warming isn’t a cause of the increased levels of Co2. Your a Blithering moron. Look to Venus for conformation. The hottest planet in our solar system isn’t the closet to the sun but Venus who has a run away green house effect, due to the concentrations of Co2 and other trace gases. High levels of Co2 in a planets atmosphere causes temperature to rise, its a fact. Do some research before you uneducated ass makes a comment.
July 7th, 2009 at 3:08 am
William, calling each other names is not going to help the discussion.
Like Grey and others have mentioned, the level of REAL scientific discussion is severely limited, any resistance has been buried by mainstream media. The people who question or ask for confirmation of ‘man made global warming’ are labeled as crackpots and told to just do as they are told.
Why can’t we debate the data the IPCC offers us?
Any theory that is to be accepted by the scientific community must pass extensive peer reviews and rigorous scrutiny. Just because not all of the 31,000 scientists are climate experts does not mean their argument is invalid, these are intelligent people who look at the evidence and are not swayed by personal and emotional connection to the subject.
The overwhelming number of scientists that disagree with the IPCC should be enough evidence to halt any legislation and to start a REAL debate on something that will effect all of our lives.
One other point
Venus’ atmosphere contains over 95% CO2
Earth’s atmosphere contains 0.0383% CO2
There is no way burning ALL of Earth’s fossil fuels we will even come close to having the atmosphere of Venus.
July 7th, 2009 at 4:05 am
Good point Laszlo, but I do not agree with the halting of any legislation that limits CO2 production. I guess I’ll have to agree that there is significant uncertainty of the effects of CO2 on our stratospheric atmosphere and global warming, there is some strong evidence that air pollutants are bad for our troposphere (ie. the air that we breath).
Looking specifically at Mexico City, there was a significant decrease in cases of asthma and other related health problems after the imposition of bylaws that put a cork in the production of air pollutants. Although CO2 is not one of those pollutants, I am under the impression that it’s output level is a pretty good indicator of the concentrations of SO2, HC’s and NOx’s.
I might be talking out of my ass. Anyone out there with more knowledge?
July 7th, 2009 at 4:29 am
LOL. No post is guaranteed to bring out a visiouce personal attack like posting sceptisicm on man made climate change. Except maybe denying God on a religious web site. Why is that do you think?
Thx Laszlo for digging up Venus’ atmospheric concentrations of CO2. Exactly what I was going to point out to the uncouth loudmouth William. I notice he didn’t even attempt to debate the points I raised. He obviously has no idea of the concentrations of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere compared to Venus’. Apples to Oranges and all that. I imagine the basis for his ‘belief’ in anthropogenic global warming is just as ignorant.
Here is a good breakdown of the 31000 scientists;
http://tadcronn.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/global-warming-31000-scientists-revisited/
Unlike the list above the experts the IPCC puts forth are comparatively hard to find any information on. (And are far less credible when the information is found.)
http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2007/06/who_are_the_ipc.html
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=0ea8dc23-ad1a-440f-a8dd-1e3ff42df34f&p=2
The Fact is there are a large number of educated professionals who disagree with the man made global warming theory. Meanwhile the proponents who support the IPCC are of questionable background and many have vested interests or outright conflicts of interest in the debate. The media try to tell us otherwise claiming the IPCC ’scientists’ are infallible and God like in their knowledge while the far more numerous dissenters are all crackpots ‘deniers’… This should immediately raise suspicion for any thinking person. The media have an agenda that they’re pushing for all they’re worth. Why? I’ll give you a hint, hysteria, fear and money = control.
July 7th, 2009 at 7:43 am
Playing Devil’s advocate here (no pun intended), but that list of “scientists” is put together by a crazy right-wing religious nut who doesn’t even believe in evolution. Just kidding.
Also, Wikipedia doesn’t seem to like that list too much either:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
As well as the individual who commented on the link you provided to the break-down of the scientists, who seems to have some pretty devastating claims about the list.
All said and done, I don’t really give a sh*t about global warming. I really don’t believe anything catastrophic will happen to us in the near future. However, a do give a crap about this life of excess that developed countries partake (I’m talking about you America!). Just because we’re not warming the earth with our pollution does NOT mean we’re not destroying the environment. I hope we can all at least agree on that fact.
July 7th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
I would just like it to be known that name calling was started by kizzle not I. I investigated the actual numbers on Co2. Earths atmosphere contains 387 parts per million. In Venus the Co2 level is over 96% as of March 2009. I also would like to mention at that level of Co2 Venuses temperature i believe is 800 degrees. Earth does not have to reach anywhere near
that level of Co2 like on Venus for it to cause severe damage like the melting of the polar ice caps, which is happening at a alarming rate. If the Co2 levels and other green house gases are not at least partly responsible I please ask for a intelligent reason. I think since solar activity is at the highest rate in a thousand years that in combination with Co2 and other green house gases might possibly account for the increase in Global warming.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:41 am
I think Lazlo is delusional. This is a great idea for locations where the climate isn’t great for growing trees. I especially like it if these plastic “trees” are made from recycled materials. However, I think it’s a bandaid on a rapidly festering wound. I feel that we need to create a movement of real change in human behavior if we are going to make any kind of lasting difference.
July 9th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
reducing the CO2 levels ?
junk science.
But then again, it should about equal the rate of deforestaion in the fain forest, so those nasty trees won’t be needing it.
Nor do we need the oxygen the plants produce, I guess
To all who think the sky is falling. It’s not, really. Chill out, you get so excited over little crap.
July 19th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
If this is so wonderful then have India and China do it. They are the countries that won’t help get rid of the CO2. They are the countries that produce the most. Let them use the fake trees. Besides…global warming my *ss it’s supposed to be summer and it has hit the north east yet!
July 20th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
I would like to reiterate a concept I spoke about in a previous comment because it seems to have slipped through the mental net. The greatest cause of Co2 in the atmosphere is the production of electricity. I propose that our elite researchers find a economical way of producing hydrogen to power the electric generators thus cutting out the main contributor of Co2 to the atmosphere. I believe you are all aware that hydrogen produces no Co2 when used as a fuel. The current amount of Co2 is 387 parts per million in the atmosphere, Scientists have stated that 350 million parts per million is enough to cause damage.
July 20th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Sorry typo, 350 parts per million. LOL
July 20th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
I would also like to direct this comment to grey. You stated that Co2 levels were higher in the past with no ill effects. I beg to differ please investigate this further every time Co2 levels rose to dangerous levels a mini ice age or a long term ice age occurred soon after. Ying and Yang
August 3rd, 2009 at 10:29 am
At this time we are stuck in the position of having to use existing technologies in order to produce a world in which we no longer need them.
August 7th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Climate – nothing we can do, really, but lets harvest the CO2 gas and send it up to MIT where they need it to make nanotubes, which could make improvements in what seems like EVERY technological aspect of our lives better
August 8th, 2009 at 4:30 am
Let’s see, Mt. Pelee has been erupting continually since???? How many tons of CO2 a DAY does it release??????? And it’s been PROVEN we are still coming OUT of an ice age. Any of you liberal Obama scum suckers know what those two things mean???? The CO2 level is going to rise because of a VOLCANO (Hello idiots) and the earth temp RAISES coming out of an ice age. The reverse is also true. WHEN the earth goes back into an ice age, AND IT WILL, it will cool down. Unfortunately you liberal morons nor I will be alive to see it, but it WILL happen. You so blindly spout Al Gore nonsense without even thinking about what you are saying. Of course they discount anyone who no matter what kind of scientist they are who doesn’t spout the garbage they(the govt.) wants to sell you. If you would shut your liberal mouths and LISTEN you might actually learn something, however doubtful that is.
August 8th, 2009 at 6:40 am
This looks awesome. For all you haters, do something else if you think it will work. The condition of our world is in extreme emergency status. We can not reduce carbon emissions fast enough to save ourselves. (Ok, we CAN, but you and I both know that we WON’T)
For those of you who believe that mankind has no influence on global temperature, I really have nothing to say, as you have obviously chosen what to believe. I just can’t understand why you would choose to believe that, even if it WAS true. If we don’t improve our lifestyles, then what is there to look forward to? Why NOT believe that we can make the world a better place by spewing less poison into the atmosphere??? Why not??
These machines, while not being a solution. are completely amazing! I would love for there to be a row of them along the road (5 lane main thoroughfare = highway) in front of my house. Every day I walk to the bus stop I can feel the mass of pollution. Not that these things will be air fresheners, but hey, if I could look at them and think that something was being done to help…
August 8th, 2009 at 6:41 am
Have you ever had a friend commit suicide by running a car in a closed garage? I assure you, it gave me a whole new perspective on what we are doing to our atmosphere.
September 13th, 2009 at 2:48 am
When crackpot ideas like these begin to surface and are taken seriously, you know neither science nor government has any solution to the problem.
Whilst climate change may not be man-made, it is still the biggest threat to our civilisation, so ignore it at our peril. The environment doesn’t need saving, it will always be here in one form or another, (even a barren, dry desert covering every square inch of land mass), it’s us that need saving.
I personally believe “the corporation” will not be satisfied until the last dollar is made in profit, and the final wheeze of the last breath from the last human being has been exhausted.
They will blame everyone but themselves for the demise of our civilisation, in particular you, the consumer. Because it’s YOUR fault you bought that new phone, that new TV, that plastic pumpkin.
Reject consumerism, reject the corporation, change your life, and if there is a final lifeboat, make sure you are on it, which will only happen if you change the way you live.
We were given the holy grail which was a 1000 years worth of fossil fuels. These tiny pockets of ancient sunshine which we’ve squandered and wasted, gave us heat, light and mobility. And in the final death throes of the Fossil Fuel Age, we’re still wasting what we have left by filling Wal*Mart shelves rather than using it to create the lifeboat we desperately need.
BP allegedly found an “elephant” oil field in the Gulf of Mexico, containing 4 billion barrels, which sounds impressive. However, we consume 85 million barrels of oil per day, so that means there’s a grand total of: 47 days of oil.
Human beings hate change, and we find it difficult to admit defeat and that’s with climate change, peak oil, economic collapse or freshwater depletion, but we are really up against it, and the odds are very much stacked against us. So much so, that when you see plastic trees, you shudder and get in the brace position; the crash landing is imminent.
Shock > denial > quack cures > acceptance.
Get to acceptance as quickly as you can, and prepare yourself for a much darker, colder, hungrier, thirstier world. All technology requires maintenance, and if the resources aren’t there to maintain these bonkers ideas, they’re a waste of resources before they leave the drawing board.
If you’re here and reading this article, you are an intelligent human being, so don’t let yourself down, there will be others you love that will depend on you.
If I’m wrong… then nothing lost. You’ve read a few books, watched a few documentaries and learned to grow,prepare and cook healthier food. If I’m right, you’re at the front of the queue for the lifeboat.
Good luck.
October 5th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
You people that are angry at this are ridiculous. Not only do we need to stop producing CO2 but we need to reverse the amount we put into the air already. We already have green energy coming in and it is restricted by the price and technology it takes to produce them and when fossil fuels are more efficient and cheaper then these products it makes it really difficult for green energy to get off the ground. To burn someone for having such a great idea is terrible and I believe all of you are fools.
October 17th, 2009 at 10:13 am
Justin….
“You can drive a car with your feet… but that doesn’t make it a good idea!” – Chris Rock.
You any idea how much energy it will take to create these monstrosities? How about how much energy to keep them working?
YOU are the fool… because you’ll be putting your hand in your pocket and paying for this lunacy through your taxes.
October 17th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
These could be made using energy from a solar farms and wind turbines to construct these. If these were to start being made then cheaper and more eco friendly versions will likely emerge. They could build one and see if it will actually work and see how much it would cost to build mass quantities of them and see how much CO2 is produced making them and find out if it is taking out more CO2 than it is putting in, then is the time I will judge if it is a bad idea or not. Also yes, I would pay for a possible solution to save the environment. If people are going to attack every person who may have a good idea that could possibly save the Earth, then who is going to want to.
October 18th, 2009 at 7:29 am
how, exactly, do we know how much CO2 we need to extract from the atmosphere? How much is too much? As is probably fairly obvious to most of you, pant life depends upon CO2 for photosynthesis, and animals depend upon the photosynthesis in plants for oxygen. If humans have damaged the climate by interfering with the atmosphere, is it really wise to create devices specifically designed to tamper with it? If we extract too much the unforeseen consequences could be swift and devastating. Perhaps tax money would be better spent on preventing deforestation, replanting trees, and promoting more ecologically rational economic practices.
November 12th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Wow this is brilliant. It’s expensive so it appeals to the capitalist; it’s a quick solution to a growing problem (think planting them around industrial areas) and if it’s powered by solarroadways dot com then we could definitely manufacture and run for pennies. With plant plastics and other non oil based materials becoming better all the time we might be able to make it leaving a 0 carbon foot print.
I’m sure the governor of California might be interested