Slashdot Mirror
Genetically Altering Trees To Sequester More Carbon
An anonymous reader writes "Forests of genetically altered trees and other plants could sequester several billion tons of carbon from the atmosphere each year and so help ameliorate global warming, according to estimates published in the October issue of BioScience. The study, by researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, outlines a variety of strategies (PDF) for augmenting the processes that plants use to sequester carbon dioxide from the air and convert it into long-lived forms of carbon, first in vegetation and ultimately in soil."
(No... didn't click your links... and I'm certain my response just doesn't make sense either... but only if 'economics,' wasn't a poorly chosen term).
Yeah, actually he DID mean economics ... cuz he's an economist.
Cripes, man, I gave you links. You could have even googled the name and gotten articles. I suppose you at least admitted you were so dead-set on saying your bit that you wouldn't want to be bothered actually getting informed about what you were responding to ...
Which kind of proves my whole point: people aren't having a conversation or even discussing this stuff, they are just talking at each other. Like you just did :-)
"Doubt your doubts and believe your beliefs." -- Switchfoot, Ode to Chin
I know of a plant that can generate 4 times the cellulose per acre than trees.
It takes less than a year to mature rather than 10-20 years with trees.
It needs no fertilizer or insecticide, and is unaffected by increased UV.
It grows almost anywhere the climate is right, and that covers a big area.
Grow it, cut it down, give the nutrients a few weeks to leech back into the soil then haul away the cellulose and fill old mines with it, use it for paper, plastic feedstock, etc..
No GM needed.
The plant?
Hemp.
(cue old lame jokes about getting high, comments in general opposition, etc.)
_
Trees aren't replanted just because people don't bother - trees are cleared to claim land and to use that land to feed the growing population.
So planting more trees is not an option unless you are politically ready to limit food production, and the global warming doesn't seem urgent enough yet.
(Of course, the largest increase driver is that more and more people can afford to buy meat, so much of the increased output is used to feed tasty animals - but it's still agriculture for our food chain)
Just so you know, around here, links to scientists get a lot more respect than links to 'movers and shakers.' Most of us personally probably know more about the situation than those 'movers and shakers' so we don't care what they think. That's why you are a troll (although I wouldn't say troll, I'd say ignorant).
Among scientists, there is no doubt that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will increase the temperature. The only questions remaining are, "how much?" and "what will be the effect?" Personally I am looking forward to global warming and drive my car as much as possible to encourage it, but even I know that CO2 warms the earth (ok that was a joke, but still....)
Qxe4
>>>We should change our behaviour,
Yes. Have less babies. I calculated that if we limited ourselves to just 1 baby per family, US population would drop from 320 to 50 million within 80 years. Fewer people == approximately 1/5th less CO2 released to the air
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
In the case of humans, because we can supplant the necessity to ensure the survival of other species in order to ensure our own, we often disregard this necessity, making our pursuits our "only" concern. This trait ensures that before too much longer there will only be us [citation needed], and our "net loss" pursuits here on earth.
Hell, I don't even think that you believe this shit. I think that you just like repeating it because you think the act of repeating it says something good about your character.
When you put character above intelligence it is a shallow, transparent, character. The only people you can possibly impress with this shit are people that don't care if what you say is stupid or not.. the kind of people that just want to fit in with a crowd of morons.
"His name was James Damore."
What are you suggesting, that we revert to a medieval lifestyle?
I have already changed my lifestyle. I live close to where I work, so that I can walk or take the bus, and the trip only takes 15 minutes. I live in a smaller residence. I wear sweaters in the winter and lower the thermostat a bit. And I have reduced (though not eliminated) my meat consumption. I buy local fruit when possible, eating apples during the northern apple season, avoiding New Zealand or Chilean apples at all cost. I consume less overall, and it has not made my life any poorer. When you consume too much you become a slave to your stuff. It builds up. It weighs you down. You buy things, only to find that they don't make you any happier.
I don't think my life is anything close to medieval, and yet I probably produce way less than half the carbon dioxide of the average person. If you want to see what medieval looks like, I suggest you attend a Tea Party rally. Their abandonment of reason, their willful ignorance and self-delusion is an excellent model for Dark Age behavior.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
I would love to see someone invent the Shipstone tomorrow but I'm also mindful of the fact that 40 years ago, fusion was supposed to be only 10 years away. Mandate isn't necessarily a bad thing as it can cause a rapid shift. It would be dreadfully ironic if China ends up ahead of the West in energy efficiency and renewable resources simply because they can do things by mandate.
I'm not sure why you resist people changing habits if they are bad ones. But, that aside, it doesn't have to be one or the other. We're told to eat better, exercise more, etc but doctors and researchers haven't stopped looking for cures.
As for nuclear, the cost has now become exorbitant and it takes such a long time to get from breaking ground to generating power. And what about the waste?
I'm not dead-set against it but the design, the amount of waste produced and the sticker (shock!) price are why I'm hesitant to support although I don't activele oppose it.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body