<What researchers are calling artificial trees, actually towers filled with various materials that adsorb carbon dioxide from the air, could play a major role in reducing climate change -- if they prove profitable.>
Love it--and if they aren't profitable, then what? The planet goes into ecological collapse because enough fizzy drink makers didn't buy the CO2? Ok, am just horsing around, to an extent, but there is a serious point in there about the level of priority accorded to climate change: 'We'll do it when it is cost effective' etc. etc.--the biosphere just isn't assigned anything like its real value as a foundation and guarantor of economic activity. Also: anyone else hate 'artificial tree' as a name? Any alternatives to propose? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
