Scientists develop tree that can remove 1 ton of CO2 per day.

[Gheld]

It would be hundreds of billions for 100M trees.

And there's 20 g20 cpuntries.
So if it's 200 billion, then that works out to a mere 10 billion each. Cheapest climate change initiative ever. And not just an initiative, an actual 1:1 carbon offset for all people.

And from there it's just a matter of maintaining the trees a d planting more if the pop rises.

[Matchu]

Can't read the article, do they also output more oxygen than 'normal' trees?

[Rukentuts]

And there's 20 g20 cpuntries.
So if it's 200 billion, then that works out to a mere 10 billion each. Cheapest climate change initiative ever. And not just an initiative, an actual 1:1 carbon offset for all people.

And from there it's just a matter of maintaining the trees a d planting more if the pop rises.

The global world emissions are 4.76 tonnes per person.

Thats:

365 / 4.76 = 1 tree per 76 people.

~7B / 76 = over 92M trees.

92M * 20000 is $1.84T. That's $900B per each G20 country.

[Gheld]

The global world emissions are 4.76 tonnes per person.

Thats:

365 / 4.76 = 1 tree per 76 people.

~7B / 76 = over 92M trees.

92M * 20000 is $1.84T. That's $900B per each G20 country.

Dude, 900B is half of 1.8T. I said g20, not g2. That's 90B each. Which is nothing compared to what some other proposed solutions would cost and it doesn't require people to radically change their lives in any way.

It's the dream solution.

[Lemons]

Can't read the article, do they also output more oxygen than 'normal' trees?

They're not even a tree. They're a bunch of plastic "leaves" that soak up carbon dioxide. That is their only purpose.

[cubby]

It would be hundreds of billions for 100M trees.

In the world economy $200B just isn't really that much.

---------- Post added 2013-01-19 at 05:04 AM ----------

The global world emissions are 4.76 tonnes per person.

Thats:

365 / 4.76 = 1 tree per 76 people.

~7B / 76 = over 92M trees.

92M * 20000 is $1.84T. That's $900B per each G20 country.

$1.84T/20 G20 countries and then divided again by, say, a 10 year program, equals $9.2B/year/G20-Country for 10 years. Ez-mode for solving the carbon problem.

[Valiea]

In the world economy $200B just isn't really that much.

---------- Post added 2013-01-19 at 05:04 AM ----------



$1.84T/20 G20 countries and then divided again by, say, a 10 year program, equals $9.2B/year/G20-Country for 10 years. Ez-mode for solving the carbon problem.

Then you get the issue of "where do you get $9.2B per year from?" I know most tax-payers won't pony up a hefty sum just to get rid of something they can't physically see. Because they have it ingrained in their brain that Climate Change isn't a thing or that it isn't accelerated because of us.

Just did some simple math (Excuse me if it's wrong) but adding up the total population of all G20 countries I came to 4,738,814,478 (roughly) total population. With a price tag of $1.8T that's ~$380 per person. Factor in that maybe 20% of that total population is under 18 and probably don't have $380 to their name leaves us with about 3,791,051,583 people who are over 18 and can actually pay on something like this.

With 3,791,051,583 total population between all G20 countries you get ~ $475 per person paying for all 100 million trees to be built. And even more you get people who don't have a job, or can barely scrape by on the minimum wage jobs they work now which makes the total per person even more and you see where I'm going with this.

At what point will people begin to realize that the $500 in their pocket is probably more valuable in building a better future for multiple generations rather than keeping $500 in their pocket for the next few years?

[nyc81991]

That is interesting, But I would like to see a lot of testing in terms of what long term effects something like that would have. The last thing we want to do is create a totally different issue.

[Reeve]

Air moves around the planet pretty constantly. It's why we have wind and weather. At high altitudes, wind can travel very fast, upwards of 300 MPH in the jet stream, which means the wind in Tokyo can bring air to Los Angeles in approximately 18 hours. Average wind speeds at 70 km above the surface of the earth are around 150 MPH, which would travel from Tokyo to LA in 36 hours. The CO2 would move with the wind.

Drunk after going to a birthday party at a club, I read my own post and I sound smarter than I am right now. Funny.

[Deleted]

Interesting idea, but after a closer look unfortunately hardly useful as the solution it is described in this thread:

It is not "removing" CO2 the way photosynthesis or limestone synthesis does, it is storing it in the form of HCO3-, so after expending energy and work collecting the "leaves", you have some bottles of gaseous CO2. Some are suggesting to hide it somewhere...
But most of our energy is won by burning fossil fuel, in coal, oil, gas power plants! We have no lack of concentrated CO2, it is there in every exhaust. On the contrary, we are putting it into the atmosphere.

Storage could become useful in the future, in the extremely optimistic case that humans will stop burning fossil fuel before civilisation is destroyed, and retain some sort of coordination to try to stop methane clathrates from blowing up...

Right now it sounds as useful as if you're in a burning city, with thousands of madmen trying to spread the fire as fast as possible, pouring gasoline hoses on the flames, and you try to douse the flames with a small rusty watering can.

[Anakso]

Besides, Global Warming was invented as a tax. I don't believe we have much of a difference within it, and the earth is doing its natural cycle.

I find weather or not we have caused this to be kind of irrelevant to it needing to be fixed. Rises or drops in C02 is essentially what causes mass extinctions, so even if this is the natural cycle. We should stop it. We're the first species that might be able to stop a mass extinction too, and that's a good thing.

[Khraine]

I refuse to think of carbon dioxide as a pollutant/greenhouse gas. I agree that there may be a level where it may stop being beneficial, but we cannot reduce carbon dioxide levels too much, if at all.

I find weather or not we have caused this to be kind of irrelevant to it needing to be fixed. Rises or drops in C02 is essentially what causes mass extinctions, so even if this is the natural cycle. We should stop it. We're the first species that might be able to stop a mass extinction too, and that's a good thing.

Alas it seems we're part time through the mass extinction, It is caused both by nature and our own activities. We are going to hell in a handbasket.

[Crackleslap]

If this tree works, why the fuck not get it. We need to reduce our CO2 levels asap. Whilst it may be costly... it is worth it. Better to use something now, than rather nothing that doesn't help anything and screw us in the future. Use it now until we have a better solution.

what I'm seeing in this thread is people talking about the costs of buying and planting enough trees to cover all emissions. We DON'T need to do that. Sure we have to plant a lot. But not all at once... We just need a enough to slow our rates of carbon emissions, and gradually plant more and more over time. Until a cheaper solution is found.

[Deleted]

There's a lot of talk here that seems like making a bunch of countries agree on this expenditure is easy
The project to construct the first fusion reactor (that is being built) was delayed for TWENTY years because all the countries participating wanted it in their territory.

Now we have a purely envinromental plan, from what the article says I can't see if there's an economic turnaround for collecting this CO2 and this will take a massive amount of space and logistic for maintenance.
It would be nice if they did but considering how tough is to get them to spend money in order to simply *cut* the emission (especially now that the Kyoto envinromental act expired) it is a tough road ahead

his is the article for the fusion reactor:http://www.newscientist.com/article/...-on-earth.html
This stuff is seriously awesome

[Deleted]

I refuse to think of carbon dioxide as a pollutant/greenhouse gas. I agree that there may be a level where it may stop being beneficial, but we cannot reduce carbon dioxide levels too much, if at all.

Why? It fits the definition of both: a greenhouse gas because it does not allow infra-red rays to be reflected back to space, heating up the atmosfere and a pollutant because our emission rate exeeds the enviornment's capacity to absorb it.

Yes the greenhouse effect is natural and we need CO2 in the atmosphere, but the current levels are much higher than the natural pre-industrial levels and should be reduced. We should make good use of this "tree".

[Powerogue]

Seems like a good idea to plant one each in the middle of our smoggiest cities so those people get to see the sun once in a while.

[Deleted]

Seems like a good idea to plant one each in the middle of our smoggiest cities so those people get to see the sun once in a while.

this is an awesome idea

[Crackleslap]

Then it comes to the matter of balance. Once/If these trees are planted etc throughout the world. Eventually doing there job. Once these trees start consuming 'to much' CO2. The trees would have to be dismantled. After awhile our atmosphere would start to become thinner and thinner and eventually cause cause 'global cooling' then we all start freezing to death. >.< Once the trees are gone, the CO2 emissions would once again start to the build and and thus the atmosphere becomes thicker and thicker once again.

[Deleted]

Then it comes to the matter of balance. Once/If these trees are planted etc throughout the world. Eventually doing there job. Once these trees start consuming 'to much' CO2. The trees would have to be dismantled. After awhile our atmosphere would start to become thinner and thinner and eventually cause cause 'global cooling' then we all start freezing to death. >.< Once the trees are gone, the CO2 emissions would once again start to the build and and thus the atmosphere becomes thicker and thicker once again.

You can be quite sure there wont ever be "too many" of trees that cost 20k to make :P

[HungryHippo]

And then all the real trees will die due to lack of Co2 in the atmosphere and everyone will get high n die from oxygen poisoning

can see it totally happening