Artificial ‘trees’ should stop climate change
The British researchers conclude that the climate is changing so quickly, without geo-engineering we will be impossible to stop it. The use of artificial trees is number one on their list of recommendations.
The technology behind the artificial trees, which should filter CO2 from the air, is currently being developed. The present-day prototypes are able to retrieve a thousand times more CO2 from the air than a regular tree.
The ‘trees’ are about the size of a sea container (!) – should be an interesting addition to the landscape, here is a picture of an actual prototype. Researchers believe they will be able to mass-produce them soon and expect they will be part of our landscape within ten to twenty years.
Via BBC, NY Times. Related: Windmill trees, Cellphone Treemasts, Fight climate change, hack the planet, Let the Dutch bury the carbon, Humans to blame for global warming, Doggerland – Mapping a lost world, If the implications of global warming were fair, Global Warming Ready Campaign.
This prooves that real nature is not green.
Well, calling CO2 catchers ‘trees’ is hardly a justified metaphor, isn’t it? Not to say that we don’t need these machines, but don’t trees also put down roots, keeping water in the soil? Create habitat for other life? In the end, If it is all a matter of cost, why not just start growing plants and trees everywhere? A thousand trees ánd a machine, now that would do some good. That way you don’t have to wait for another ten years either. Which proves that green nature is artificial too.
One question. In the linked articles the scientist proposes to capture the carbon forever. Isn’t that a bit of a scary trade-off? Sounds a bit like the tomakek: ever more energy for our growing needs, but you will have to feed it water, another scarce resource…
Here, here Aetzel. We could stop cutting down so many trees and plants some more, consume less stuff, use more solar energy. Why is that considered so difficult compared to some of the silly ways they keep coming up with the sequester and remove CO2. Seems a far simpler solution to me.
Growing trees is slow and expensive. It takes years to grow a tree. Then it dies, and all the carbon goes back into the environment, defeating the point of sequestering carbon.
To add insult to injuries, there are more trees today than ever before, due to the paper industry. The main source of carbon isn’t deforestation, as that’s easily reversible. Fossil fuels are a one-way resource and that’s where the carbon lies.
As for capturing carbon forever: what did you think an oil well was? Previously, it was just a SHITLOAD of carbon miles under the ground. Now it’s not.
If you can build a thousand trees, is there a reason not to?