Raider5678

My bad, I used the ctrl+f function and it didn't show up. Anyways, that still doesn't mean anything. The plant does not mix it with sea water, so it's a moot point.

What was the point of this then: You obviously missed the part about carbon neutrality of natural ecosystems. No, you didn't. Is it possible for genetically engineered plants to help prevent global warming? I took your posts as a resounding "No." I'm taking RangerX's posts as a resounding "No, fuck you." And I took Ken Fabians as "No, here's why."

No I'm not blowing it out of my ass.

I had an entire replied laid out for you an it dissappeared. I'm just gonna give you the links and you can read it yourself. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2010.01342.x https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016706104000266 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/304/5677/1623 Anyways, around 40 gigatons of capacity worldwide. But those articles do point out, due to the large capacity from basically any soil, the sequestration will be entirely possible. The roots won't have to grow, they won't become saturated because you're putting it into the soil in the form of SOC, and the soil won't become saturated for hundreds of years. Since every time you cut your grass you release the carbon again, the carbon would be saved everytime you cut the grass, meaning the benefit would compound.

Sigh. What makes you think it's natural if we've made it artificial?

It's not exactly carbon neutral if you're dragging it from the ground and burning it again. Photosynthesis. It will carbon, combine it with energy gained from sunlight, to produce food for itself. That's what plants do.

It's put there everytime something dies. It's natural. What else are we suppose to do with it? Bottle it up and launch it into space?

So removing carbon after putting carbon in the atmosphere is a stupid idea why?

Can you point out why this would be without a shadow of a doubt more costly, more ineffective, then the current solutions we are trying to do? This will reduce it, but many scientists think reducing is no longer enough because we've gone past the tipping point. So a reversal of some sort is almost a must. I feel like it's a lot more then monoculture if it's designed to be like that.

The main point I was making is that not as much carbon would be released from cutting the grass. I wasn't trying to convey where the carbon would go once it got to the roots. Simply stating it was headed to the roots was sufficient for that point. I still have no idea whether you're criticizing the idea, or if you're criticizing me fact-checking it. No, it is not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration More like a filter. Eventually, it will fill up and it'll stop, yes. After centuries. Hardly a one time hit. I thought about it, researched the basics behind it, looked up the concepts/current attempts at doing it, decided that it was a potential solution in the future, and asked you guys to fact check what I'd already looked up. You criticized me for wanting to fact check it before building an entire plan around it. I know, it's not of the norm to ask people to fact check you before digging yourself in and refusing to accept you might be wrong, but big deal. You provided 7 points, I answered them all, and you're accusing me of doing Gish Galloping? I don't follow.

You should google soil carbon sequestration, which is something grass already does, just not much.

When we cut the grass, it decays. It then releases all the carbon it collected back into the atmosphere, negating the effect. GE grass would move the carbon towards it roots, where it will not be released back into the atmosphere everytime it is cut. What do you think happens to the carbon in cut grass?

1. Around 35 million acres of land for U.S. lawns alone. Considering I haven't been able to invest in research into making the plant, how could I possibly know this? How I answer this question is very simple: I don't know, I couldn't know, and this is why we'd research it before making the proposal. 1 acre absorbs around 4kg of Co2 per day. 35 million acres, at let's give a ballpark figure of double efficiency, would be around 280,000 tons of co2 every day. You can safely assume that's an additional amount of Co2, because every time we cut the grass, virtually all the co2 automatically releases back into the atmosphere as of now. The GE grass would push it into the soil. The U.S. released 6.8 billion metric tons, so this would take away around 102 million metric tons or a decrease by 1.5%. Say you could increase the carbon efficiency by 400%, you'd take away around 204 million metric tons or a decrease by 3%. As of now, we've successfully engineered plants to do it 10 times more effectively:https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2016/05/29/harvard-scientist-engineers-a-superbug-that-inhales-co2-produces-energy/#692d0d6a7944 and making fuel out of it as well. So grass doing it 1000% more efficient, with the technology we have today, could remove 510 million metric tons a year or a decrease of 7.5% for the U.S. alone. Again, I couldn't possibly know, and as stated before you'd have to invest in research to see what the differences are with the GE grass. Again, couldn't possibly know. Look above. It wouldn't be a one time fix. Every time we cut the grass, the benefit would be additional. We could also GE the grass to grow slower, which would reduce carbon emissions from cutting it, which is around 20,000,000 tons a year, which could be cut in half to about 10 million a year if you made it grow half as fast. Obviously, you wouldn't want to do this on farms where cows graze, but then you also don't cut the grass there so it's moot. Ask any poulterer, you should also make sure you're getting an animal that can actually lay eggs first.

I never said to stop reducing emissions are anything, and I didn't mean to imply to. Ultimately, however, global warming does need to be reversed from what I've been told. Even if we stopped all carbon emissions today it could be too late because of a snowball effect. Reducing emissions in that scenario wouldn't be enough. Fair enough. However, GE bacteria are still another possible solution unless I'm wrong. Well, I came here to ask if it was possible, not outline some grand vision plan, and at the moment you just said I didn't have a plan yet. Ken Fabian, however, has given me great feedback on possible problems so all is good. Well, I'd prefer to ask around and make sure it's possible before I start building a giant plan around something that doesn't work, but if you insist you have to count your chickens before the eggs are laid, then fine, you do you. I will, however, simply fact check my stuff first. Sorry to be such a disappointment. As of now, the current solution is to lower carbon emissions. Unless I'm wrong, that's an extremely simple solution. Well, more of a delaying tactic. Whether it cuts on a political platform or not, to me, depends on if it could genuinely help global warming. Not if it sounds "complex" or "simple." I understand that we shouldn't just abandon all the current precautions we're taking, like lowering carbon emissions, but surely it's not going to harm the problem to look into reversing it as well. The current president simply denies global warming as propaganda. I suggest you rethink what will/won't cut the mustard on a political platform. My approach, is bass ackward(backwards?) simply because I want to ask if a potential solution is scientifically accurate before launching a campaign including it? Are you serious? Are you seriously trying to tell me, that making sure I'm not talking nonsense first, is backward? One of my biggest problems with politics these days are people convincing people of false things. If this was on my platform, I would actively be trying to convince people that this is a method we should look into. You're telling me, that rather than confirming my hypothesis that GE plants and bacteria could help curb global warming in the future, I should just ignore confirming my opinions and just start telling people it's true? If you have a problem with this so much, then fine. However, do realize I am not going to change how I do things unless you have a criticism that will genuinely help people for the better if I do it. Believing every idea I have to be automatically true without fact-checking, is not going to help people. Yeah, I forgot about that part. Balancing the ecosystem would be necessary. As far as I know, we don't have enough knowledge about the ocean to safely introduce anything, algae/bacteria alike, and know if it would have any drastic consequences, so I'll probably have to abandon that idea in the current way I'm looking at it. What about grass though? When grass dies or is cut, the carbon is released back into the air. GE grass could be engineered to push more carbon to its roots instead. The spread of it would be simple, you'd just sell it as grass seed, and make it possible the new grass would out-compete against the current grass, replacing it. You could also potentially have it a two-step system. Spray all the current grass with a special solution to weaken it, and then plant the GE grass that would then be able to easily replace the current grass. Potentially engineering the grass to have wider blades as well could allow it to draw more carbon as well. Plus, people typically want thicker grass as well so it wouldn't be ugly looking. Unless it was blue or something, but due to how photosynthesis works, I doubt that. No, I'm suggesting the technology will already be there by the time I take office. Additionally, as I said before, I'm trying to, more then anything, figure out if it's a reasonable/possible solution first. There seems to be a misunderstanding. I wasn't avoiding the question of it that would be enough to cover it. I was pointing out, that in my OP, I had only stated that the money was for research and that I had never intended for it to cover the full program. You were criticising a position I wasn't defending, and I was pointing that out. As of now, you're the rank and file politico, since you apparently want me to push my positions before fact-checking them. Again, regardless of how terrible of an idea you think it is, I will fact check it first. Before you estimate the cost, you have to have the plan. Before you have the plan, you have to have the concept. Before you have the concept ready, you have to fact check it. I'm sorry for not skipping the fact-checking, planning, and making sure the concept is real before trying to throw estimates out I couldn't possibly have any idea about. Wait. No I'm not. I can take it, yes. And I'm not against changing how I am based on criticism. That being said, I'm not going to change based on your criticism that I must have a plan to execute something before making sure it's possible. Actually, they propose and vote on legislation. That's hardly what a manager does. There are similarities, but not enough IMO to simply say they're basically the same. Please do keep criticizing my posts, however. I do enjoy this, and it will help me make sure I'm not talking BS half the time. But don't get offended if I respond in kind.

Fair enough. I'm 15. I can't make the investment "now". I'm not in an office, and won't be able to run for at least 6 years, which would be the soonest I could push any kind of agenda like this. Additionally, I'd be in a state legislative position, not a federal one, so this is a placeholder at best to say what my position on global warming is. I don't. I won't pretend I do. That being said, I'd rather start somewhere than nowhere, and as of now this idea beats trying to simply slow down global warming. And for some reason, I highly doubt it'll cost anywhere near 100 billion to figure out how to genetically engineer plants. Hence why I said this: Basically, we could invest around $1,000,000,000(less than 1/500 the military budget) into genetically engineering algae, trees, etc, to be much more effective at reducing greenhouse gases. The $1,000,000,000 was intended for genetically engineering the plants, I'm sorry for my bumble head mistake of not pointing out this doesn't include deployment. I figured deployment, due to a large number of different plants, would be impossible to estimate. I.E. genetically engineered trees would be more expensive than genetically engineered saltwater algae to deploy. Notice taken. I'm certain if I tried I could put my own spindoctor spin on it as well. That's not the point. I wasn't here to try and convince anyone of anything. I was here asking if this is possible and if it would be feasible. The fact it's not convincing, or that it seems like careless thinking, doesn't really bother me. If anything, it'll give me a more objective opinion. Better yet, someone will either confirm the research that I've already done or point out where there was something I missed.

Think of it like rockets or something. The technology to fly rockets already had to be there. The basic concepts, etc. You still have to invest in research and development to build a new rocket though. Same with genetic engineering. As of now, our skills with genetic engineering are less than perfect. But once the technology gets better and we're able to modify plants easier, we can then spend some money to design a plant that will effectively help stop global warming.

Okay, haven't started a topic in a long time. Anyways. Some of you may know that I plan to run as a politician one day soon, and a potential sponsor told me that they'd like to see my entire platform first. Which I then realized my platform was rather limited to things I cared a lot about like education, and failed to include many larger things like foreign policy(even though I wouldn't be involved in it) and, you guessed it, global warming. So, for the most part, my policies revolve around solutions to problems, so naturally, I want this position to be no different. However, I also don't want to lie in my position so I want to get this position peer-reviewed with you guys. My position is that there is a cheap, effective, environmentally safe solution to global warming the government could execute. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101001105205.htm Basically, we could invest around $1,000,000,000(less than 1/500 the military budget) into genetically engineering algae, trees, etc, to be much more effective at reducing greenhouse gases. As of today, I don't think we have the technology, however, I also believe it is rapidly approaching. So, once the technology is there in say 5-10 years, the government could invest in research and development to genetically engineer these plants and then deploy them to the optimal locations to stop global warming. Is this solution feasible from a scientific standpoint, and is this solution feasible from a political standpoint?

Please reframe from outright lying. Here, I'll leak you some information: Obama tried to arrest Edward Snowden for leaking information. He fled to Russia. It's already criminalized. Trump didn't just magically start looking at leaks as criminal acts.

Dude. It's a joke. Don't overthink it, look at the humor, and laugh.

You require the knowledge of plate tectonics to understand the joke in the first place.

Out of curiosity, what level of ignorance does this require?

I recall a joke once: God: "How do I convince humans the bible is real and I exist... Hmmmm. Oh! I know! I'll motivate a scientist to climb Mount Everest, and while he's up there I'll let him stumble across some seashells! That'll convince them the flood obviously happened. How else could seashells get to the top of Mount Everest?" *scientist climbs Mount Everest and brings seashells back* Scientist talking to other scientists: "Mount Everest must have sprung up out of the ground over billions of years. There's no other possible conclusion."

Today I learned that bathtubs are just the opposites of boats.

Maybe.

I didn't know paintball used oxygen.