37 replies to this topic

[WBSKI]

I really dont see how burying trees would make a difference. You would probably have to bury millions..Why not just leave trees in the ground to absorb more CO2?

LiftTech, you know deforestation is generally caused by humans on a large scale. Its not the trees releasing CO2, its the burning them which we as humans do normally to clear land for your beef.

[LiftTech]

WBSKI, on Jan 31 2007, 10:51 AM, said:

LiftTech, you know deforestation is generally caused by humans on a large scale.

Yes, Since the beginnings of civilization.

[WBSKI]

It is happening much much more rapidly now because we have many more billions of people: http://altbuzz.org/p..._population.jpg

Before it wasnt an issue because it was on such a small scale and there werent millions and millions of cars on the planet.

[SkiBachelor]

It's actually a good idea to cut down and replant trees because older trees don't do as good of a job of consuming CO2 as new growth trees do.

[WBSKI]

Thats true, but the machines that cut down trees release lots of CO2 as well.. Personally, I dont see how cutting down trees will alleviate anything because thats what we are doing right now.

[Callao]

Not all trees absorb CO2. Only living ones do. So take your mature tree, or in other words, the tree that's about to die, and bury it. It doesn't matter if you burn your tree or let it rot---it will still release all its carbon. Fast or slow, you choose. Unless of course, you put it under ground where it won't rot. Or burn.
But even if it makes sense, why don't we just launch our garbage into space? Get rid of it forever? Of course it's not plausible! But it's still fun to think about. As for me, I've planted hundreds and hundreds of trees, as well as thousands and thousands of geraniums. But that's another story.
Keep it green, boys.

[SkiBachelor]

Isn't the CO2 in trees stored in its roots?

Therefore if you cut it down, it won't be releasing the CO2. While the roots start to decay, the carbon will be absored in the ground.

I thought the entire human race was supposed to be extinct by now from the West Nile Virus?

[Callao]

Trees are made out of all sorts of carbon compounds, not CO2. CO2 is the product of, well, the end of it all. Here's the trick to know where the CO2 is really stored: if it burns, it's making CO2.

West Nile Virus is all BS. It's all about the giardia! Sure old people can die from it . . .
And I tell you--if we get another student pooping in the river again, I'm gonna
So much for being an effective wilderness guide.

[WBSKI]

I still dont understand HOW you plan to bury these trees? My point is that a tree absorbs more CO2 then it will release when it dies because it is built of carbon so unless the whole tree disappears, you will still have carbon in the tree. Since we have an obesity problem, why dont people walk/bike/or whatever to the store instead of driving, in a big city, its quite viable.

[SkiBachelor]

Your forgetting that trees slowly break apart CO2 molecules. So the carbon atom and the two oxygen atoms will break apart. This is how we get oxygen back in tht he air.

Or atlest that's what I got from my science classes. How else would trees be able to produce oxygen. Matter can't be created.

[WBSKI]

I realize that. But is rotting a chemical reaction that will release CO2? Im not sure..

[Callao]

Rotting is a chemical reaction, and yes, when a tree rots, it all goes away. Eventually. Here's how:
Tree doesn't exist.
Tree gets planted and grows, harboring chemical reactions powered by sun.
Tree gathers carbon: CO2 --> C + O2 while O2 is returned to atmosphere.
Kids build house in tree.
Tree dies.
As tree rots, the reaction reverses: O2 + C --> CO2. BTW, this reaction will go easily by itself if you add a catalyst called fire, releasing, ideally, all the energy it gathered and stored from the sun.
Tree doesn't exist--back where we started, with the same amount of C, O2 and CO2 we began with.

Don't worry, let's not bury any trees. Besides, they're mostly water anyway.
You're right, WBSKI, we'd have to bury a lot of trees. Let's just walk and de-obesitize.

[liftmech]

LMAO Okay, I'm done now.

Emax brought up an angle in another topic that is relevant here. Why improve upon current technology (in this case, transportation and power generation) when we can work on something completely new? Why are we still driving cars powered by internal combustion on roads paved with dead dinosaurs and rocks? I've heard of many new angles on these topics. Electicity, despite the fact that generating it produces (usually) emissions, is much more efficient than fossil fuels. No-one seems to be making any electric cars, though. GM did but last year they actually recalled and junked them all. What good did that do?
I agree with Bryan that an efficient mass transit system would help immensely. Now, this isn't exactly new tech, but almost all Americans these days have never lived when cities were linked by rail. Now it's all superhighways populated by giant UAVs and busses. What about a trasportation network that connects population centres by rail, with smaller, road-bound vehicles used only for local distribution? One train carrying people or goods from place to place uses far less fuel than the equivalent amount of automobiles.

[WBSKI]

I think one problem with electric cars is that the batteries arent powerful and durable enough yet, same in hybrids, after a few years you have to get a new battery and send the other chemical filled one to the dump which isnt fully environmental either. Plus, if we use more electricity, then more powerplants will have to be built, and you will be likely tapping out of coal generated electricity which doesnt really solve the CO2 problem, it is probably about the same efficiency as a car when you consider all this.. As for Hydrogen power cars we have the same problem. There is no easy access to large amounts of pure Hydrogen. So they will have to filter it and currently that is not at all efficient and uses large amount of electricity. So I agree, we are going to need some new ideas and new inventions which make some things more efficient (batteries and separating hydrogen)

[aug]

Is not burning trees and fossil fuels utilizing solar energy or should I say stored solar energy. Is not all energy sources some kind of solar energy?(except nuclear or hydro power that depends on gravity also). Burning up 60 million years(approx) of stored solar energy in 100 years (approx)is going to have some kind of impact on the global climate. Even a large volcanic eruption will have an effect on the global climate. The Earth is in no danger ,just the Earth as we know it is. Logicly, we(humans) will only be a hic-up in the history of the world . The good times must come to an end sometime.

[Callao]

Who says we should modify how we travel? Good ideas, but how about cutting the need to travel in the first place? The internet is amazing. True, goods still must be shipped, but soon, people will be working right at home, significantly reducing travel.

Except for lift mechanics.

[Ontariodude]

Maybe someone should invent the teleporter

Will T. (ontariodude)

[WBSKI]

Mikest, good way of stating it.