5 ms·

Yay. Now we don't need plants to reduce the greenhouse gas CO2. We just need to turn loose this bacterium and build an economy around alcohol fuels. No need for

Yay. Now we don't need plants to reduce the greenhouse gas CO2. We just need to turn loose this bacterium and build an economy around alcohol fuels. No need for systems thinking that involves the environment when we can create a bacterium which is more efficient in one aspect of the environment it is replacing. So long as we can extend this reductionist framework to provide us with the nitrogen we need. And the global temperature management functions. And the human food. And the....etc

jeffwass 10y ago
The Simpsons is already way ahead, with a similar scenario (lizards getting rid of the menacing pigeon population) : SKINNER Well, I was wrong. The lizards are a godsend. LISA But isn't that a bit short-sighted? What happens when we're overrun by lizards? SKINNER No problem. We simply unleash wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes. They'll wipe out the lizards. LISA But aren't the snakes even worse? SKINNER Yes, but we're prepared for that. We've lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat. LISA But then we're stuck with gorillas! SKINNER No, that's the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.
- JustUhThought 10y ago
  Well, it goes without saying, of course the "Simpsons Already Did It". :)
- SpacemanSpiff 10y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9yruQM1ggc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9yruQM1ggc
ams6110 10y ago
This won't reduce atmospheric CO2.
- peatmoss 10y ago
  It does if you use it to produce more fuel than is consumed.
  - deciplex 10y ago
    It's unlikely we wouldn't consume it, but we could "consume" it without releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere, e.g. by making polyethylene from the alcohol.
peatmoss 10y ago
Agreed, though I kind of like the idea of replacing carbon positive fuel with carbon neutral fuel. If we overproduced fuel--thus sequestering carbon--we could go some way toward cleaning up at least some of our carbon mess. That would reduce some of the anthropogenic stresses on ecosystems rather than allowing them to collapse. We need to get our shit together with respect to the environment, but if we can stave off catastrophe for a while, I think we're in better shape.

jeffwass 10y ago

The Simpsons is already way ahead, with a similar scenario (lizards getting rid of the menacing pigeon population) : SKINNER Well, I was wrong. The lizards are a godsend. LISA But isn't that a bit short-sighted? What happens when we're overrun by lizards? SKINNER No problem. We simply unleash wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes. They'll wipe out the lizards. LISA But aren't the snakes even worse? SKINNER Yes, but we're prepared for that. We've lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat. LISA But then we're stuck with gorillas! SKINNER No, that's the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.

JustUhThought 10y ago
Well, it goes without saying, of course the "Simpsons Already Did It". :)
SpacemanSpiff 10y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9yruQM1ggc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9yruQM1ggc

ams6110 10y ago

This won't reduce atmospheric CO2.

peatmoss 10y ago
It does if you use it to produce more fuel than is consumed.
- deciplex 10y ago
  It's unlikely we wouldn't consume it, but we could "consume" it without releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere, e.g. by making polyethylene from the alcohol.

peatmoss 10y ago

Agreed, though I kind of like the idea of replacing carbon positive fuel with carbon neutral fuel. If we overproduced fuel--thus sequestering carbon--we could go some way toward cleaning up at least some of our carbon mess. That would reduce some of the anthropogenic stresses on ecosystems rather than allowing them to collapse. We need to get our shit together with respect to the environment, but if we can stave off catastrophe for a while, I think we're in better shape.