5 ms·

Stupid question, but I've always wondered if it would be possible to genetically engineer trees to consume more C02 then they already do? Seems like a way to m

• ohitsdom 12y ago
  I'd be really interested in this area of research, too. And not just trees- what about smaller plants (even house plants)? I'd imagine an engineered "heavy breather" that people could easily grow in their homes and yards could make a measurable impact if widely adopted. It could also be tied in to a type of carbon-based tax to encourage people towards a carbon-neutral lifestyle.
  • stouset 12y ago
    Plants don't just magick carbon away. They store the carbon as more plant. Ergo, to offset the release of a pound of carbon, you need more than a pound of plant. A typical American releases tons of carbon per year (literally, not figuratively), so to offset this will require tons of plant. Thousands of pounds of houseplant per year is... impractical, to put it gently. 80ft tall, 24ft diameter hardwoods can hit 50 tons at maturity (50+ years). So it seems that planting half a dozen to a dozen hardwoods would be enough to mostly offset a typical American's lifetime carbon emissions. Of course, when the tree dies, the carbon has to go somewhere.
    • bryondowd 12y ago
      Probably completely impractical, but this conversation gave me a picture of people raising fast-growing plants in their homes/yards that they continually 'harvest'. This harvested matter than gets taken to a dump site and buried, capturing the carbon underground. I suppose the whole operation would have to either use solar power or be extremely efficient to avoid burning as much or more carbon based fuel than it buries.
      • semi-extrinsic 12y ago
        Freeman Dyson proposed this solution a few years back. I honestly think it's not being done because most huge companies prefer to spend a little money (relatively speaking) on CCS research and kicking the can down the road.
• stouset 12y ago
  Since trees store carbon as, well, tree, this basically boils down to: massive and fast. Using bullshit numbers I found on a quick search, Americans average 20tn/yr of CO2 emissions. Ballpark, carbon is a third of that by mass, so you'd need to grow 7 additional tons of tree per year.
• frenchy 12y ago
  Having trees consume more CO2 might have some benefit with regards to the greenhouse gas supply, but I don't think this is the main reason why try replanting is done. I think the main reason why replanting is done is to reduce erosion and to provide a new supply of trees to be logged in the future.
• bernardom 12y ago
  I have no background in this, but wouldn't the energy need to go into something? Like making the trees thicker or something like that?
  • swalsh 12y ago
    I have no experience either, but my guess is Probably, but that would just be one more reason to do the research. A faster growing tree would probably be pretty beneficial to the lumber industry.
    • vosper 12y ago
      I know only a little about this, but I think the problem with fast growing trees is that the wood tends to be of low quality for commercial purposes. A while back eucaplyptus trees were planted all around the world, but turned out to not be very useful as lumber. I think they're mostly now used for paper pulp, which is still useful, but much less valuable than timber. If the aim is to just regrow a forest quickly then maybe it doesn't matter. But I think there's probably a difference (aesthetically, if nothing else) between a healthy "natural" forest ecosystem and a plantation all of the same type of tree.