Artificial trees are those things that people hang Christmas ornaments on.
That article makes it sound as though the whole process doesn't really cost any energy, just what it takes to run some water on the resin. But that can't get any more CO2 into the water than would get there by just letting it equilibrate with air directly. On Apr 17, 12:33 pm, jim woolridge <[email protected]> wrote: > <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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
