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."
Now if only there was any evidence WHATSOEVER that carbon IS increasing OR that increased carbon in the atmosphere is a bad thing!! Yeah, turn that little knob and see if things get better.... OOPS! The whole system is screwed up? Just turn it back right?
The problem here is that we don't understand the environment or our atmosphere nearly as well as a lot of scientists seeking funding for these studies would like you to think. Trying to make changes to the natural environment can cause just as many problems as it helps and that's assuming it helps AT ALL. Someday we may understand things enough to know what and how to affect change but that's certainly not today. To say it's an emergency (and ALL data says NOT!!) and we have to do something, anything!! is just stupid. Step one is having models that are reliable, step two is to be 100% certain that what's happening will have a negative enough impact to justify intervention.
On the models thing I keep reading about how they're getting better and better and yet we still can't predict weather day to day. How good can our models be when the path of a hurricane or the formation of a tornado or what the temperature will be tomorrow is virtually unpredictable. Oh yeah, we have a probability maps but keep in mind that most environmentalists are trying to claim they can predict an increase in global temperature of less than 1 degree in 100 years. It's not valid science and those trying to claim it is are just looking for money.
If you want to see what happens when we try to step in and HELP nature read about the history of Yellowstone National Park. We're very lucky it's still there for all the HELP we've given it....
Well that and warmists are 100% solidly, sure that everything is 100% positively set in stone and nothing can be wrong at all. Uh-huh...
Om, nomnomnom...
Well, we've only been changing our environment to suit our own behavior since the first caveman started chipping rocks to make the first primitive tools. We call that "technology". If you'd like to go back to before that, I believe you're quite welcome to. But don't half-ass it, go all the way with it, k?
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
I very nearly yelled out loud just now "WHERE ARE MY MOD POINTS!".
Short, concise, and deadly accurate in describing the majority of the idiots who spout this sort of crap. Thank you.
They claim to want to rise above our natures when in reality they're just falling prey to the same nature by wanting to fit in with that particular "group". Personally I would like them to all fit in with that group, and all wear badges to identify themselves. I would also like them all to please go through this lovely little glowing chamber that will make them feel a little warm. Theres 100% eco-friendly ice cream on the other side!
What? Why does it make you feel warm? Don't worry, its just a trick of the rad- er, I mean, new recently discovered ecological processes happening. Its subtly altering your body to benefit all of humanity.
>>Get rid of all the stupid environmentalists who opposed nuclear energy. They are responsible for global warming, not SUV drivers.
Environmentalists are responsible for global warming (they've kept us on coal and oil as our primary energy sources) *and* SUV drivers (via the paradoxical effect from braindead CAFE laws).
Cleaning up the atmosphere also contributed a bit to global warming as well. Damn Clean Air Act. =)
>>Sorry but cutting carbon dioxide by half doesn't cut it when there are 6.8 billion people.
Actually, halving our CO2 output is the consensus view of what we need to do to stabilize temperatures at a reasonable level.
We could nearly accomplish this by switching from coal to nuclear (40% of our CO2 comes from coal alone), and make the target with minor other improvements. Without disrupting our economy, like a CO2 tax would impose.
By contrast, bullshit like Kyoto tries to merely stabilize CO2 targets at our 1988 levels, which isn't enough. It's basically nothing more than a feel-good tax on rich countries, and if that sounds paradoxical to you, well...