digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at thedailygreen.com

Could Landfilling Trees Be a Solution to Global Warming?

thedailygreen.com — The whole problem with global warming starts with digging up and burning the carbon from plants and animals, in the form of coal and oil, that has been buried for millions of years. So two German scientists have a solution: Start burying stuff on a massive scale....

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • stonebear, on 05/15/2008, -3/+33How utterly absurd. It takes massive amounts of fossil fuel to move earth and fell trees, not to mention space to bury the trees. And all that at a gross economic loss. People have trouble just finding somewhere to bury their trash, and can barely afford that.
    • madwaxer, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1sounds revolutionary but is stupid. i'm surprised its being touted by such 'smart' people.
      putting all those trees in the ground is just going to release even more gases as the bacteria and fungus in the soil break them down for food. what they need to be doing is developing more gen-engineered trees that can grow faster and resist pests without toxins (physically stronger) so we don't create a super feast of a boom of locusts. next plant millions on the seeds in the damaged areas of the amazon and sub saharan regions which are being claimed by the desert. heck i'd just plant them everywhere!
  • lucidguru, on 05/15/2008, -4/+15While trees are a great carbon sink, it would make more sense to just to convert the carbon into useful organics and other carbon molecules... DIAMONDS are made out of carbon and have TONS of uses... although energy intensive my feeling is that mass production of diamonds is going to revolutionize electronics while simultaneously solving the carbon problem.
    • Fordi, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Diamonds are insulators and cannot be doped into semiconductance using any known material.

      However, fullerine tubes, that's a different story.
      • sacherjj, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Really? Don't tell that to these guys: http://www.geek.com/81ghz-diamond-semiconductor-cr ... . Diamonds can withstand much more heat than silicon. The biggest speed bump is price of the substrate.
        • Fordi, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2I admit I wasn't aware of this, but I didn't see anything there about a semiconduction-producing dopant.

          Meanwhile, that layer by layer thing means, maybe they can build nanowires right into the process.
        • sacherjj, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1The article states that a simple boron doping creates semiconductors.
        • kurtu5, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Diamond semiconductors are the holy grail of high temperature computing.

          Hell in 20 years, your home computer will burn incandescent and probably be used to heat water and your home.
    • madwaxer, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1turn the carbon into diode materials and you can build millions of LED bulbs to cut down on our power consumption globally.
    • blandrys, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1There exists many ways to create synthetic diamonds already. In what way do you think this has "revolutionized electronics"?
    • ronjohn, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Diamonds would be worthless. What would you rather boiling hot eart or pretty diamonds....
  • greenfyre, on 05/15/2008, -5/+21Or simply stop causing the problem, scale energy use back to what we actually need for a life of health and dignity (about 10%) rather than what we can consume in accumulating wealth and stupidity (potentially infinite). The problem is our idiotic lifestyle, carbon is merely a symptom.
    • vault, on 05/15/2008, -4/+10Yup, and after we give up on accumulating wealth and consumption, we can all take off our Birkenstocks and hold hands around the campfire.
    • blast_flame, on 05/15/2008, -3/+9Hell no. Stop trying to use global warming to advance your luddite, primitivist agenda despite the fact that many proposed science and technology based solutions exist. Their's a reason why all those low technology counties in the world want to advance. Feel free to give up "excessive energy" and technology but don't force it upon me. Enjoy living with a vastly reduced quality of life and no technological progress, me and people like me are going to explore the stars and have exponential technological progress.
    • Gabberwok, on 05/15/2008, -1/+5For your plan to work you would also have to tell people to stop breeding as well, otherwise we'd be back to current consumption rates within 60 years or so (assuming you meant 10% of our current energy use per capita and we dropped to that level tomorrow).
      • kurtu5, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2The best way to halt breeding, it to provide luxury and immense energy to the citizens.

        Italy with all its hawt women and great looking guys, seems to be suffering negative population growth, DESPITE, government efforts to increase it.

        Wealth(not scraping buy) and power(thousands of horse power at the flick of a switch) is causing the young to not reproduce at 18, not pump out two or more kids in a 4 year period, but take vacations and enjoy life.

        Power, wealth, longevity(immorality even), are not enemies to the environment, they are the only things that will allow a balance to be reached and limit population growth.
    • iceperson, on 05/15/2008, -1/+6why don't you show us all how? first, you'll need to turn off that computer.
    • Fordi, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4@greenfyre: You pulled that 10% out of your ass, and you know it.
      @vault: you're being needlessly pedantic.
      @blast_flame: ad hominems won't get you anywhere.
      @Gabberwok: population growth in industirlized nations has sloped off to almost a plateau. Has that been taken into account in your calculations?

      Generally: it's more about improved efficiency of what we've got than avoidance of energy expenditure. About 3/4 of the energy we use just to drive is pissed away as waste heat, for example.

      Our best bet is more efficient energy capture from renewable and long-term sources (long-term being something like thorium, which isn't likely to run out in the next thousand years - even at double our current consumption of uranium).

      As for burying trees, my answer is as always: if it's cost effective, and does the job without causing damage, do it.
  • KMye, on 05/15/2008, -4/+12It doesn't say it in this version of the story, but the same scientists also proposed paying for this Manhattan-project-for-the-retarded with a $0.65/gallon tax on gasoline, rather than perhaps putting the wood to some good economic use. The multi-faceted idiocy here is breathtaking.
  • doctechnical, on 05/15/2008, -1/+12Um, excuse me for asking the really dumb question, but if all the carbon we're putting into the air from fossil fuels comes from old plants (and the critters that ate those plants), and given that plants use chlorophyll and sunlight to fix CO2 from the atmosphere, does it not stand to reason that all that carbon was *already* in the atmosphere for the plants to fix?
    • gummih, on 05/15/2008, -0/+9Not a dumb question. Before the emergence of plants and green algae the atmosphere didn't have any oxygen and was filled with CO2 - and we don't want it to go back to being like that.
    • holeymoley, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5Actually, a lot of the the excess carbon was locked up in limestone (calcium carbonate), gets released by water, and then held out of the atmosphere by flora, so you can breathe.
      • MWeather, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1The primary source of the calcite in limestone is marine organisms.
    • kurtu5, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

      Its a shame this isn't taught when the water cycle is taught.
  • webman77, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1More to this controversial subject, you' ll find here:
    http://digg.com/environment/A_simple_idea_Wood_as_ ...
  • BigManOnCampus, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1I agree, let's start by using Nuclear power and burying the reprocessed and reused waste that is only still partially radioactive.
  • shogun545, on 05/15/2008, -2/+0This really sounds like something from the mind of Uwe Boll.
  • LyokoIsCool, on 05/15/2008, -7/+5No such thing as global warming....the global temp has gone down 8 years in a row.

    Then again, I forgot that Al Gore created the Internet >.>
  • andy314159pi, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4You just need to cut down a forest the size of the entire U.S. every year and then bury it in a preserved state and you are on your way.
  • ninepointfive, on 05/15/2008, -1/+6My idea is to just throw away all your paper and not recycle it. Problem solved!
  • dan.stryker, on 05/15/2008, -9/+3Global warming = myth
  • holeymoley, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2Putting carbon into the ground is not going to negate the excess carbon in the air. The excess CO2 is still up there doing its dirty work. Unless they mean that these trees must be new trees, not existing ones or replacements for those already cut down. That way you have excess trees to respire excess CO2. Regardless, the scale of the project is just too ridiculous to take seriously.
  • bombula, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4An asinine proposal. Trees are a superb carbon-sequestration device. The problem is that we've cut 2/3 of them down in the last 200 years. If we planted 500,000 sq miles of forest, atmospheric CO2 would return to pre-industrial levels within 15 years.
    • Duositex, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1The only thing we'd need to bury are the leaves.
  • Echosphere, on 05/15/2008, -0/+8I've got a better idea. Why don't we just landfill all those SUV that get less than 20MPG.
    • jmeeter, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3Better yet, why don't we *recycle* all the SUVs. ;)
  • birdman1169, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Another ridiculous idea to take more of my money and spend it on someone who can't get their head out of there ass and believes that they are entitle government help.
  • funkyjunk3, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4Better idea:
    Grow lots and lots of algae. Or even better yet, synthesize photosynthesis to convert the CO2 back into O2. This is still in early, early R&D, but its a lot better than burying trillions of trees...
  • mrhaines, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2I am so sick of these stupid ideas. There is only one solution for climate change: stop consuming so much goddamn fossil fuel. Period.
  • Evildudetx, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3Two completely retarded German scientists come up with the dumbest idea ever. ***** this carbon footprint *****......everything has consequences, so get over it.
    • DeadPanDan, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Everything has consequences so we should ignore the consequences? Am I reading that right?
  • stix213, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1That's stupid.... They might as well have said to just finish the space elevator and ship entire forests into space, which would probably actually be a better idea.
  • TobiMichelle, on 05/15/2008, -0/+0There's another story about this on Checkerspot magazine, Canada's climate change magazine: http://www.checkerspotmagazine.ca/EN/issues/ss08/t ...
  • recycleraccoon, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3Organics in landfills make methane gas, one of the most potent greenhouse gases. Then the landfills have to flare off that gas. Hmmm. I think the trees probably do more good above ground.
  • jerrycurley, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Definitely! Rev up those gas powered chainsaws, people! We've got rainforests to take down and landfill!
  • puter, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Trees process CO2 into oxygen. Maybe I'm being stupid, but wouldn't cutting them down make things worse?
    • badger500, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3Not being stupid--just getting flummoxed by this dopey idea. Trees don't process C02 into oxygen--they use C02 to make themselves, and blow off oxygen in the process. Wood is made of carbon, and that carbon is got from the C02 in the air. But they don't need all the oxygen atoms, so they "exhale" some. The idea is that we use trees to suck up lots of C02 from the air but then BURY THEM BEFORE THEY DECAY AND RELEASE IT BACK INTO THE AIR. This way it is trapped down a deep mine shaft. But of course this idea is not a good one for the reasons discussed.
  • newsbynemo, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2OK, trees remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Burying the trees below the water line would sequester the carbon from the atmosphere. But it would also sequester the nutrients (phosphates, fixed nitrogen, potassium, and others). After awhile the soil becomes depleted. Of course, we can fertilize these forests with phosphates we mine and nitrogen we fix (using natural gas!). Why don't we instead sequester carbon in a purer form? Why don't we bury coal? Or better yet, not dig it up in the first place? In a sane world, all our new power plants would be nuclear...
  • arlanda, on 05/15/2008, -2/+1Why not siphon these excess CO2 into space?
  • DeadPanDan, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Someone needs to explain to these guys that a forest is not just a bunch of trees.
  • trollick, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2I believe baby seals also have some carbon in them. I propose we club them and bury in the same landfill with them trees.
  • justreboot, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5Great idea!!! I'm going to chop down my neighbors tree and cover it in dirt right now.
  • domu, on 05/16/2008, -0/+0There is much better idea: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread333656/p ...
  • CalvinLawson, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Stupidest.

    Idea.

    Ever.
  • ronjohn, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1ureka
  • caponumen, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Well maybe, but lets start by burying these "scientists" and their STUPID IDEA.

    .....DONE, that was easy......
  • Canadian0207, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1this is by far the stupidest idea i've ever heard...by far....

    why do you ppl digg this up!?!??!?!!
  • stevelast, on 05/16/2008, -0/+0It is amazing that some Germans came up with this idea. It is crazy on many levels but...

    Don't they realise that their government, with the French etc, originated the EU Landfill Directive, and their whole aim is to STOP biological material being placed in landfill! It IS being banned as we speak.

    Can they really not appreciate that the entire European Union waste management policy machine would have to be put into reverse and all waste management regulations for the last 15 years repealed in order to do this!
  • wurge, on 05/17/2008, -0/+0This is so rediculous im not even going to give reasons it should be obvious.
  • jonszakelyhidi, on 05/18/2008, -0/+0I'm sorry, but can someone please explain to me how burying trees is going to get rid of CO2?
  • xmfx, on 05/19/2008, -0/+0why did i waste my time reading that? i thought it would some how magically redeem itself at the end but no, instead it tells me why i am an idiot for sticking it out to the end of the article. the author must not have noticed the "scientists" snickering uncontrollably during the interview.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.