Insanity at it's finest...

[Cat]

The UK is considering creaing "artificial trees" to capture carbon dioxide "thousands of times faster" than real trees. They then will capture and "store" the CO2.

 

ARE THEY INSANE???????

 

 

REAL trees not only capture CO2 but PUT OXYGEN BACK INTO THE AIR! What are they going to do with all that CO2? Blast it into space? Sink it in containers into the sea? It's CREATING a bigger problem than we have now.

 

They think that humans are creating environmental problems now... can you imagine what THIS plan will do to the air? To the weather? To the land when it's "stored"???

 

 

INSANITY...

 

~~~

 

Forest of 100,000 Artificial Carbon-Capturing Trees Proposed in UK

by Brian Merchant, Brooklyn, New York on 08.27.09

 

Carbon-capturing artificial trees have been getting some due attention lately, and for good reason: each fake tree can suck down CO2 thousands of times faster than their leafy, organic brethren--giving them intriguing potential as part of the solution to global climate change. Now, scientists have taken the idea a step further--they're proposing that one of the most practical ways to cut greenhouse gases on a large scale is to build a forest of 100,000 artificial trees over the next 10-20 years.

 

In its new report that outlines three practical geoengineering solutions to climate change, the UK based Institution of Mechanical Engineers has deemed artificial trees a development of utmost importance. So how would they work? They operate a form of carbon sequestration that catches CO2 from the air in a filter and holds it in storage. According to the BBC, "The CO2 would then be removed from the filter and stored. The report calls for the technology to be developed in conjunction with carbon storage infrastructure."

 

What makes the idea so appealing to scientists, however, is its viability. The BBC reports that Dr. Tim Fox, the report's lead author, says

 

"Artificial trees are already at the prototype stage and are very advanced in their design in terms of their automation and in the components that would be used. They could, within a relatively short duration, be moved forward into mass production and deployment."

 

Which means we might see some mechanical forests sprouting up in the very near future. The prototype tree that Dr. Fox worked with is said to capture "thousands of times" the amount of carbon that an ordinary tree does.

 

 

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/08/ar...w01-101-ae-0004

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Christy]

Trying to think what this means. Is it purely meant as a device (that just happens to look like a tree) to store carbon emissions?

So that it looks like a tree is either to make the public feel "green" of what is seen as a clever PR move. Anything that slurps up CO2 could look like a great big lump for all it matters now.

 

If memory serves me well, trees indeed put out more oxygen than CO2 simply cos there is more daylight than darkness.

What a weird piece of news Cat.

 

Ah, here a link to something with a pic. It does vaguely resemble a tree but that's about it.

http://www.sinlung.com/articles/nature-cal...osed-in-uk.html

 

So it is meant to buy the world time, they say. Could be true, if science (contradicting itself all the time but who's to be sure) proofs there is more CO2, then we need something to rid of it as well. And stop producing as much.

So everybody, rid of your cars and back to horse and buggy. Oh wait, horses produce CO2 as well

And a link with wav.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/200...es_wup_sl.shtml

In Britain, a review of the way technology can be used to tackle climate change has recommended using artificial trees.

 

 

Algae units could be designed into new buildings or retrofitted to old ones

 

Many climate scientists believe the world has only a few decades to reduce emissions before there is so much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that a dangerous rise in global temperature is inevitable.

 

The UK's Institution of Mechanical Engineers says that methods such as artificial trees, algae carbon capture and reflective roofs should be used on a short-term basis to buy the world time.

 

However, in the long term, the institution believes it is vital to reduce emissions.

 

Dr Tim fox is the institution's head of Environment and Climate Change.

[zophiel]

My question is: If these are used, and the CO2 sucked up and locked away like nuclear waste. . . won't we eventually be killing trees? The Rainforest, et al? Don't plants need CO2?

 

Mind you, I'll grant that I've never been convinced of the "anthropogenic" part of global warming. . . or global warming itself, considering the past few years. . . so I'm sure I'm more inclined to skepticism than many. Still, isn't messing about with nature in such a way just asking for trouble? Wasn't that the lesson of, among other things, Jurassic Park?

 

I don't see why people think CO2 is a pollutant in the first place-- it's great for green things . . . I'm gonna stop now, or I'll descend into a full blown rant and it won't be pretty . . .

[ScrubbieLady]

Correct me if I am wrong but don't humans require CO2 to breathe. One of the solutions of hyperventilating is to breathe into a paper sack and breathe your own air back in, balancing the amount of oxygen and CO2.

 

Reminds me of a joke that showed various items constructed based on instructions by various type of scientist and engineers with some really unusual solutions. The final pic is of what the consumer wanted. A tire swing. They cannot see beyond their own field to take in all the impacts. Like a cardiologist only thinks of heart problems.