Reverse Global Warming.

[TonyMcC]

It seems that Global Warming is mainly caused by burning fossil fuels. We cannot put oil and coal back under the ground, but may be able to do something similar. The logistics of my suggestion are admittedly horrendous, but using power derived from wind or tides may make it feasible. The general idea is to trap as much carbon as possible by growing trees and then stack them where they will not decay (or at least decay extremely slowly). I suggest stacking them where temperature always remains below freezing point - i.e. near the north or south pole. This would be a huge project involving many countries and spanning many years, but should slowly reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

[swansont]

Why couldn't you just bury them?

[TonyMcC]

If just buried in damp soil at a temperature above freezing they would decay and the gases make their way to the surface. You would need to bury them below a layer of rock or clay that is impervious to gas and dome shaped to contain the gas. I don't know whether that is a more practical proposition. Perhaps preventing decay is the better alternative?

[waitforufo]

This is a ridiculous and idiotic idea. Why would anyone in their right mind ever invest in producing and then sequestering a valuable commodity for no use whatsoever? Who would pay for such nonsense? Who would elect or reelect a person that promised to raise taxes, impose levies, or impose regulations that produced a unusable pile of wood?

[Mr Skeptic]

I think there's better ways to sequester carbon. Of course there's also the fact that we're digging coal out of the ground and burning it, so maybe we should stop doing that before we start burying something as valuable as wood. Alternately, we could turn it to charcoal which would release some valuable gas fuel (also can be converted to liquid fuels with some extra effort). Though that would lose some of the carbon, it gets a valuable byproduct and converts the wood to something that is not biodegradable, so that it could be buried anywhere saving on the costs and emissions of transporting them, and I hear it also makes farmland more productive (called biochar) and needing less fertilizer (which we are using coal to make). Also other plants could be used instead of wood, since as char they won't rot.

 

But perhaps the most interesting suggestion is that we can fertilize the oceans. The iron concentrations in many parts of the ocean are a limiting factor for algae growth, and putting just a little bit in could make a big difference. One of the proponents has said, "give me an oil tanker full of iron and I'll give you an ice age". However there are concerns that it would affect the ecosystem, particularly that all that algae decaying could cause anoxic conditions.

[random]

why wouldn't you just let the darn things grow? They'll live for hundreds of years continuing to trap carbon and would return our planet to it's original state. Or are you considering weed trees like Aspen and poplar that grow very quickly or the new hybrids which sprout up 30 ft in a season? Global warming will only be solved using a culmination of efforts but burying trees won't be part of it. But.........why not sink them in the northern ocean where they'll be preserved indefinitely. Trees are very good at converting carbon into a usable solid I wish some scientist would figure out another way to do this forming a sort of plastic which we could recycle over and over. We seem to just love the latest gadgets and gizmo's that we're a throw away society It would be an excellent solution just not possible yet.

[TonyMcC]

As I said, the logistics would be horrendous- and so therefore would be the cost and effort required over perhaps centuries.

However in the end it may prove necessary to "bite the bullet". Obviously the prime thought is capture carbon and preserve it without it, however slowly, converting back to gases such as carbon dioxide. My idea is simple and would work but since hundreds of years may be needed then just letting the darn things grow may not be enough. Of course there are many ways to capture carbon and if there are better ideas "out there" then I am pleased to have raised the subject. Let's have some of those ideas.

Edited October 9, 2010 by TonyMcC

[zapatos]

This is a ridiculous and idiotic idea. Why would anyone in their right mind ever invest in producing and then sequestering a valuable commodity for no use whatsoever? Who would pay for such nonsense? Who would elect or reelect a person that promised to raise taxes, impose levies, or impose regulations that produced a unusable pile of wood?

 

"To mitigate global climate change, a portfolio of strategies will be needed to keep the atmospheric CO2 concentration below a dangerous level. Here a carbon sequestration strategy is proposed in which certain dead or live trees are harvested via collection or selective cutting, then buried in trenches or stowed away in above-ground shelters. The largely anaerobic condition under a sufficiently thick layer of soil will prevent the decomposition of the buried wood. Because a large flux of CO2 is constantly being assimilated into the world's forests via photosynthesis, cutting off its return pathway to the atmosphere forms an effective carbon sink.

 

It is estimated that a sustainable long-term carbon sequestration potential for wood burial is 10 ± 5 GtC y-1, and currently about 65 GtC is on the world's forest floors in the form of coarse woody debris suitable for burial. The potential is largest in tropical forests (4.2 GtC y-1), followed by temperate (3.7 GtC y-1) and boreal forests (2.1 GtC y-1). Burying wood has other benefits including minimizing CO2 source from deforestation, extending the lifetime of reforestation carbon sink, and reducing fire danger. There are possible environmental impacts such as nutrient lock-up which nevertheless appears manageable, but other concerns and factors will likely set a limit so that only part of the full potential can be realized.

 

Based on data from North American logging industry, the cost for wood burial is estimated to be $14/tCO2($50/tC), lower than the typical cost for power plant CO2 capture with geological storage. The cost for carbon sequestration with wood burial is low because CO2 is removed from the atmosphere by the natural process of photosynthesis at little cost. The technique is low tech, distributed, easy to monitor, safe, and reversible, thus an attractive option for large-scale implementation in a world-wide carbon market."

 

http://www.cbmjournal.com/content/3/1/1

[Moontanman]

Why not grow wood as a fuel, turn it into pellets, use them to power steam cars and homes even power plants. just regrow them to recycle the carbon...

[TonyMcC]

Using wood as fuel and growing more trees would not reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmoshere. At best, if it were the only fuel burned, it would maintain the present high levels. In practice burning coal and oil as well as wood would result in the amount in the atmoshere increasing.

[-Demosthenes-]

I don't see a reason to make CO2 back into fossil fuels, is there a cheap way to make CO2 into a some other solid solid?

[zapatos]

I don't see a reason to make CO2 back into fossil fuels, is there a cheap way to make CO2 into a some other solid solid?

The reason to collect CO2 in trees (not sure a tree is considered a fossil fuel) is that it is cheap and easy, and the technology is already in place (trees). Is there some reason you object to the idea of using trees?

[random]

I think we worry too much. I find it impossible to believe that throughout the earth's history there have not been other climate changing burps of C02. The earth herself can recover naturally, what we need to do is stop the constant belching of pollution, in favor of more sustainable methods, before the effects are more than we can bear as a species. We've done alot of harm and there is and will be consequences but by trying to find methods to effectively put a band aid on the obvious wound we're ignoring the need to change our whole energy structure. I believe we have the technology to cut emissions in half very easily within the next 10 years and that's for the entire world. But we would have to work together and share resources and "oh heaven forbid we do that" Might cost some money.

An interesting fact..........the war in Iraq and Afghanistan has used enough money and resources to completely solve world hunger in the entire world. I believe it was 3x over. We can afford to blow the hell out of each other but not to solve our problems. THe solution to climate change is a world wide effort where money is non existent in the formulation of a solution..............good luck with that.

[-Demosthenes-]

The reason to collect CO2 in trees (not sure a tree is considered a fossil fuel) is that it is cheap and easy' date=' and the technology is already in place (trees). Is there some reason you object to the idea of using trees?[/quote']

I guess I was trying to think of something cool But that certainly satisfies the requirements and it sounds cheap and easy. What about plankton? I would take further study to see what effects there would be on the environment for these interventions and how much they cost.

 

An interesting fact..........the war in Iraq and Afghanistan has used enough money and resources to completely solve world hunger in the entire world. I believe it was 3x over. We can afford to blow the hell out of each other but not to solve our problems. THe solution to climate change is a world wide effort where money is non existent in the formulation of a solution..............good luck with that.

This highlights an interesting fact, that this isn't actually so much a technical problem as it is a social/political problem. The sad fact is that most hunger in the world is man made through war and political unrest, as apposed to simple lack of resources. The solution to a great many problems is just what you said, a world wide effort -- or rather cooperation or at least non-war.