Research Factory Turns CO2 into Building Materials

[LeninGHOLA]

Depends what problem you're talking about. If you're talking about green house gases then CO2 will absorb IR radiation and increase temperatures and has a rather long atmospheric life where as CO isn't anywhere close to as bad in that regard . If you're talking about toxicity then CO is worse because it binds with your hemoglobin and prevents your blood from binding with oxygen to carry that around, where as with CO2 it will only displace oxygen physically in your lungs, it won't bind with your blood.

I can't carbonate my blood? That's bad news for obese American soda loving vampires.

 

[Nenu]

The US practices quite sustainable forestry.

Quite sustainable is great, but isnt enough and unless humans can stop multiplying it hasnt got a hope anyway.
At some point, it will become entirely unsustainable.

The US practices dont reflect the rest of the world.
Its good that there is effort being made but other countries need to follow suit and to be on average better than the US to make it sustainable.

 

[Runningflame570]

Seems like it might be a lot easier to go out and plant a shitload of trees.

My favorite thing is when idiot environmentalists (I've got no problem with environmentalists, just the idiot varietal) protest logging of commercially grown forests.

"You're killing the trees, maaaaan. Without trees the CO2 will build up and like, melt the oceans."

No concept at all that those growing trees get their carbon from gaseous CO2 and lock it into wood where it can't warm anything. Growing trees over and over is the best, most natural thing around for carbon sequestration.

The problem with commercially grown lots, like most or all industrial farming is the lack of biodiversity, the topsoil degradation and/or loss, and the polluted runoff that results.

It's probably better than some of the alternatives, but not using so much paper to begin with would be a better one. As with other areas, the problem isn't overpopulation, it's conspicuous consumption.

Good point.

I'd really like to see an analysis of that. Paper requires a lot of energy to produce and transport, as well as to dispose of it. So does recycling, which is why it's the least useful of the 3 Rs, unfortunately it's also the easiest one politically.

Don't forget that paper decays and produces methane in landfills as well, which is quite a bit worse over the short-term than CO2-and possibly the long-term as well if it pushes us past one or more tipping points.

The thing about common sense is that it rarely makes sense when you look closer at things.

 

[Aluisious]

The thing about common sense is that it rarely makes sense when you look closer at things.

Just wanted to point out that this was nonsense. There's a certain point where you should stop writing, lest it become obvious you just want to read your own words.

 

[blitzkommando]

Quite sustainable is great, but isnt enough and unless humans can stop multiplying it hasnt got a hope anyway.
At some point, it will become entirely unsustainable.

The US practices dont reflect the rest of the world.
Its good that there is effort being made but other countries need to follow suit and to be on average better than the US to make it sustainable.

Then it's a 'good thing' that we're seeing a population crash around the world as more people have access to more resources (such as medicine, education, food, and skilled labor). If the trends pan out we will struggle to hit 9 billion people at which point the population will go into free fall and hit as low as 1 billion, if not complete extinction. It's the demographic-economic paradox. As more people gain it and ostensibly have the increased resources to be able to raise children, they instead either have too few children to maintain population stability, or refuse them outright. The US and France are often cited as outliers given they are almost growing (in the case of France) and slowly growing (the US). That's explained by the high immigration rates of both nations where Middle Eastern and Roma people are by far outpacing the native French, and Latinos doing the same in the US. And that all ignores another major factor of population decline in wealthier nations: suicide. There's a correlation between suicide and wealth as well, though exacerbated by other factors as well (such as climate and economic/political instability). In the US for example, suicide is now the number one cause of death by injury.

And you may think this is inconsequential, but if the rates continue in countries like Russia and China, of childlessness and high suicide and death rates, they will literally not exist in the future because they will have completely disappeared. Russia is notorious for having one of the most negative population replacement rates in the world. If it continues, and there's few expectations for it to slow or stop, Russia will be home to 30 million fewer people by 2050. Even India is seeing a rather stark drop in fertility rates.

My view, looking at the data and how even massively fertile nations like Tanzania are dropping? I think we've been taught to look at a problem that during the 1970s was a distinct reality given the rates then, but which has dramatically changed in the ensuing 40 years. It's a very complex issue. For instance, part of the reason for China's declining birth rate beyond the one child policy, is one of the consequences of the policy in that they have an increasingly unbalanced gender ratio. Combine that with the soda cracker economic foundation China has, and I imagine you'll see famine and poverty there like hasn't been seen since they tried their Great Leap Forward. The last century saw hundreds of millions worldwide die from famine, political and ethnic cleansings, wars, in addition to disease. While disease has become mitigated through medical advancement, I think that we're far from over seeing the end of the wars, cleansings, and famines. In fact, I think we're headed towards a worldwide decrease in population the likes of which hasn't been seen since the 14th century. The difference being that much will be due to peaceful choice, rather than plague infected rats. Though certainly strife will account for a great deal as well.

Sorry about the long post, but population trends is one of many subjects that fascinates me because it is such a macro level study. The long and the short of it is that human growth rates are slowing worldwide and show no signs of ramping back up as of yet.

 

[Runningflame570]

Just wanted to point out that this was nonsense. There's a certain point where you should stop writing, lest it become obvious you just want to read your own words.

Care to actually address my arguments with something other than a logical fallacy?

Common sense is the assumption without proof that things are a certain way and plenty of people make arguments based on it that fail to hold up when tested.

 

[Aluisious]

There was no logical fallacy made observing that you shovel bullshit phrases into the ether. I suggest you quit before it is certain to anyone that you write things you don't understand.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

Care to actually address my arguments with something other than a logical fallacy?

Common sense is the assumption without proof that things are a certain way and plenty of people make arguments based on it that fail to hold up when tested.

Tree farming (in my state) does not cause soil degredation or polluted runoff. Sustainable forestry is just that: sustainable. Plum Creek and Weyerhauser both use long term planning and well established methods to prevent exactly the things you are talking about. They have been doing so for decades.

Biodiversity is a non issue. Each type of wood has its own application, you can't grow just 1 type of tree. Nurse logs, underbrush and planned cuts all keep the land rich, and the forests growing. Why would they destroy the land that makes them money? It would be unusable.

Paper disposal and recycling are both things we handle well. Recycling actually provides a net energy savings of up to 50%. It's also cleaner and causes less pollution.

Sure, forestry 50-100+ years ago was a huge mess. In the US, it hasn't been an ecological burden in a very long time.

 

[Runningflame570]

Tree farming (in my state) does not cause soil degredation or polluted runoff. Sustainable forestry is just that: sustainable. Plum Creek and Weyerhauser both use long term planning and well established methods to prevent exactly the things you are talking about. They have been doing so for decades.

Biodiversity is a non issue. Each type of wood has its own application, you can't grow just 1 type of tree. Nurse logs, underbrush and planned cuts all keep the land rich, and the forests growing. Why would they destroy the land that makes them money? It would be unusable.

Paper disposal and recycling are both things we handle well. Recycling actually provides a net energy savings of up to 50%. It's also cleaner and causes less pollution.

Sure, forestry 50-100+ years ago was a huge mess. In the US, it hasn't been an ecological burden in a very long time.

Thank you.

My comments were addressed more towards single species tree plantations (e.g. palm oil, pine) that have garnered a lot of controversy, I know there are better ways to manage things, but I wasn't necessarily sure how common they are at this point. The bit about recycling paper doesn't surprise me, land filling doesn't just make things disappear and while things like landfill gas power plants have helped out a bunch they still release a lot of methane.

Do you have links to any good papers that go into more detail on current forestry practices? I'm aware of SFI but haven't read into things extensively and would like to read more.

 

[mavrocket]

I'm not sure the point you are making.
The amount of forested land doesnt change that we are chopping it down and replacing it with humans.
This is unsustainable but its not going to stop.

I'm going to assume you live in an urban area.

If you actually lived out in the wilderness like I have and do, you would know that those of us that do don't level entire areas to build our homes...

 

[LeninGHOLA]

Thank you.

My comments were addressed more towards single species tree plantations (e.g. palm oil, pine) that have garnered a lot of controversy, I know there are better ways to manage things, but I wasn't necessarily sure how common they are at this point. The bit about recycling paper doesn't surprise me, land filling doesn't just make things disappear and while things like landfill gas power plants have helped out a bunch they still release a lot of methane.

Do you have links to any good papers that go into more detail on current forestry practices? I'm aware of SFI but haven't read into things extensively and would like to read more.

Try the FSC, UNFF or UNECE, USDA FS and of course SFI. There are quite a few certification processes out there to endorse companies who use environmentally sound forestry practices.

Let's put it this way; even the SFI is impressed with how the US handles sustainable forestry.

 

[Stiletto]

Fuckin' serious?

You know how to turn CO2 into building materials? Trees.

Nah. Far better to let them turn into huge, destructive forest fires. Keeps the media in business. Then, when there aren't fires, they'll report on how carbon dioxide is causing global warm-er, climate change...completely unrelated to those burning trees, by the way.

 

[Nenu]

I'm going to assume you live in an urban area.

If you actually lived out in the wilderness like I have and do, you would know that those of us that do don't level entire areas to build our homes...

For your assumption to work, the rest of the world would have to live like your area.
What you do is not a reflection on all of society, this isnt about what you do.
And you are wrong btw

 

[shollz]

Have they built anything yet? pics or it didn't happen