China Is Building a Vertical Forest to Fight Pollution

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Clever architecture is typically all about aesthetics, but here’s a case where the design is actually trying to improve lives. China is trying to alleviate their terrible pollution problem by stuffing plant life into a pair of buildings. This is actually not the first of its kind, as the same architect has already erected “vertical forests” in Italy and Switzerland.

China has pollution problems, and one Italian architect could have some answers. The Chinese city of Nanjing is getting a Vertical Forest, a set of two buildings stylised with around 1,100 trees and a combination of over 2,500 shrubs and plants. But it's not all about how it looks: The Nanjing Towers will absorb enough carbon dioxide to make around 132 pounds (60 kilograms) of oxygen every day, an official press release claimed. China's Vertical Forest is scheduled to be completed sometime next year. At the time of writing, Nanjing has an air-quality index of 167, which categorizes it as "unhealthy." For reference, Sydney and New York both have "moderate" indexes of around 60, while London sits at about 100, teetering between "moderate" and "unhealthy."
 
I wonder when they will get the memo to stop producing hydro carbons at the crazy rate they are going at? I think that would be a good first place to start.
 
Ya, it's definitely a small amount, but better than nothing I guess. I do wonder how long it can last. I mean, do they have to swap out trees every so often, cause they get to large?
 
"In the world I see - you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Tower. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying strips of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway."
 
they could put a bunch of fans together with a filter and collect fuel to burn. reburn!
 
Cities do need more green so something like this is welcome. I'd love to have all kinds of plants and animals/insects/birds around. Green rooftops is just the start
 
Quite simply, China is where the US was in the 70's with pollution and smog. The US is very clean now. No more acid rain etching on my car. Give China the same 30 years it took the US to get this way. It's progress.

Don't believe in taxing or making people miserable. Just common sense.
 
So make every 5th building one of these and green shrubs etc on top of every building.

Nukester said:
Quite simply, China is where the US was in the 70's with pollution and smog. The US is very clean now. No more acid rain etching on my car. Give China the same 30 years it took the US to get this way. It's progress.

Don't believe in taxing or making people miserable. Just common sense.
Click to expand...

1970's smog with 2017 technology.... super HD 4K SMOG! IN 3D!
 
Pretty neat concept which is getting more popular recently. The idea of vertical farming and forestry has become a bit of a topic of interest lately especially in the higher density, urban areas. This and vertical farming, kind of like Chicago's "The Plant" should be heavily considered in places like China. In this case, the vertical forest concept is pretty cool although unless they start putting in tons of these structures throughout the cities, I doubt it will make much of a dent in China's pollution problem. It's a nice effort though.
 
piscian18 said:
"In the world I see - you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Tower. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying strips of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway."
Click to expand...

Came for this, leaving satisfied.
 
cyclone3d said:
But, but, but, I thought that the only way to reduce pollution was to tax everybody that produces carbon emissions as well as to tax cow farts.
Click to expand...
Speaking of cow-farts, studies are suggesting that just putting small amounts of seaweed into cow's regular feed can drastically reduce methane emissions.

Ultimately though, the solution is pretty simple. 7.5 billion, and exponentially increasing, is too many people. Gradually cut the world population down to a 1950s 2.5 billion, and even without changing a single other thing you will have cut pollution/consumption/trash to 33% of current levels per capita.

There is no other technology that we see on the horizon that could so drastically reduce our carbon footprint as simply having less people to support.

Unfortunately, rather than reducing the population to a manageable 2.5 billion, by 2050 we are expected to see a population of 10 billion. Be prepared to see more India-style overpopulated slums in the future in most of the world, and NYC and Tokyo style cramped living conditions in the wealthy parts becoming the norm.
 
Ducman69 said:
Speaking of cow-farts, studies are suggesting that just putting small amounts of seaweed into cow's regular feed can drastically reduce methane emissions.

Ultimately though, the solution is pretty simple. 7.5 billion, and exponentially increasing, is too many people. Gradually cut the world population down to a 1950s 2.5 billion, and even without changing a single other thing you will have cut pollution/consumption/trash to 33% of current levels per capita.

There is no other technology that we see on the horizon that could so drastically reduce our carbon footprint as simply having less people to support.

Unfortunately, rather than reducing the population to a manageable 2.5 billion, by 2050 we are expected to see a population of 10 billion. Be prepared to see more India-style overpopulated slums in the future in most of the world, and NYC and Tokyo style cramped living conditions in the wealthy parts becoming the norm.
Click to expand...

And guess what? Plants really, really, really like carbon dioxide, which is NOT a pollutant/greenhouse gas, as the "experts" would like you to believe.

And plants make oxygen, so it is a win, win, either way.

If we make more carbon, thew plants will flourish.

The only real problem is that there is way too much "concrete jungle", a massive amount of blacktop (which sucks up heat way more than concrete) which leads to higher temperatures in areas close to the blacktop, and not enough trees in the large cities.

There are super simple "fixes" to a lot of this, but it seems that nobody is smart enough.. or rather there is not enough money in the easy "fixes"... and people would really probably hate having white vehicles, roads, and roofing in areas that are "too hot", and having all dark colored stuff in areas that are "too cold".
 
This should be standard for all human architecture, a step in the right direction IMO
 
Ok so it absorbs CO2.... great, now what about all the soot, smog and other nasty shit that is in the air because they're burning coal like it's the industrial revolution
 
Rofl the air quality index number is just absurd at 167.
Meanwhile, I checked my local city in Maryland is 13, though other areas I see as high as 30 or 40.
 
cyclone3d said:
... carbon dioxide, which is NOT a pollutant/greenhouse gas, as the "experts" would like you to believe.
Click to expand...

Don't know what you're smoking but it's not good for your brain if you believe what you said to be true. Or you're chasing a red herring (which is also dumb).

Red herring fallacy and how it's applied to CO2:


Explains what CO2 is in our atmosphere and why it's dangerous in large amounts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#In_Earth.27s_atmosphere

An example of what's happening due to the CO2 being released
https://xkcd.com/1732/
 
cyclone3d said:
And guess what? Plants really, really, really like carbon dioxide, which is NOT a pollutant/greenhouse gas, as the "experts" would like you to believe.
Click to expand...


ummm...what can I say, despite your attempt to the contrary the term EXPERT is not an insult, quite the opposite in fact.

I also think NASA makes a rather more cogent argument that you do:
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

And you know the vast majority of scientists agree with them:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

and if for some reason you don't believe US agencies (even NASA) here is the EU take on it
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/change/causes_en

I'm fairly confident if I could speak mandarin I would find similar data on the Chinese side

So unless you think this is some sort of global conspiracy of unprecedented levels you are simply wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reus
like this
krotch said:
Ya, it's definitely a small amount, but better than nothing I guess. I do wonder how long it can last. I mean, do they have to swap out trees every so often, cause they get to large?
Click to expand...
I suppose it depends on the trees used. Here in the Rocky Mountains, we have lots of shrub oak, which doesn't get more than 10-12 ft tall, and does well with the shallow, rocky soil. They are probably selecting native trees and plants that have similar properties.

sfsuphysics said:
Ok so it absorbs CO2.... great, now what about all the soot, smog and other nasty shit that is in the air because they're burning coal like it's the industrial revolution
Click to expand...
Plants absorb more than just CO2. They can act as a filter for some of the other stuff. Not the most efficient filter, but will help some nonetheless. Not very good for the plant's health, but that isn't the concern here!
 
Mav451 said:
Rofl the air quality index number is just absurd at 167.
Meanwhile, I checked my local city in Maryland is 13, though other areas I see as high as 30 or 40.
Click to expand...
mines at 8, not bad for being one of those damn dirty oil towns in Canada you hear about thanks to some super smart celebrities lol.
 
Neutrino said:
ummm...what can I say, despite your attempt to the contrary the term EXPERT is not an insult, quite the opposite in fact.

I also think NASA makes a rather more cogent argument that you do:
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

And you know the vast majority of scientists agree with them:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

and if for some reason you don't believe US agencies (even NASA) here is the EU take on it
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/change/causes_en

I'm fairly confident if I could speak mandarin I would find similar data on the Chinese side

So unless you think this is some sort of global conspiracy of unprecedented levels you are simply wrong.
Click to expand...

It is political whether you like it or not. Opposing views get drown out and stomped on. It's a way to control and some people want a world gov't. This isn't conspiracy, it's common sense.
 
hahaha.. I've seen these concepts around for years and no one has actually tried to make a vertical farm, forest, arcology, etc. move from theory to sustained options. Well.. maybe this time is the right time. Here's looking at you, China!
 
Nukester said:
It is political whether you like it or not. Opposing views get drown out and stomped on. It's a way to control and some people want a world gov't. This isn't conspiracy, it's common sense.
Click to expand...

You literally described a conspiracy then claimed it is not. Perhaps you would like to rephrase that.

My approach to common sense is to trust the established scientific consensus. Furthermore, to back up my point I have provided links from one of the most respected scientific/engineering institutions in the world (NASA), what evidence have you brought?

And third, yes there is a political aspect to many policy decisions including this one. Political lobbying is a well established art. But to really think the renewable energy lobby is so much more powerful than the fossil fuel lobby that it managed to overwhelmingly schew the scientific consensus is simply unrealistic.
 
The only way China is going to reduce pollution is by cutting down the population and the government reduce or stop rebuilding cities. Less people = less carbon pollution through vehicle emissions = less people littering = less rubbish/recycle process etc etc.
 
Matthew Kane said:
The only way China is going to reduce pollution is by cutting down the population and the government reduce or stop rebuilding cities. Less people = less carbon pollution through vehicle emissions = less people littering = less rubbish/recycle process etc etc.
Click to expand...

Nailed it, but they did away with the 1 child rule, so growth is in the cards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top