Scientist proposes "super plants" to curb climate change

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/16/super-plants-climate-change-joanne-chory-carbon-dioxide?utm_source=pocket-newtab

We all ready know that climate change is the elephant in the room. And I'm no scientist, but Dr. Chory's idea here of genetically modifying plants in order to improve their natural ability at absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere has huge potential I think. Here's her take on her Ideal Plant project:
 

  Quote

 

“We’re trying to do something that’s a huge, complicated thing even though it sounds so simple,” Chory says. “Plants evolved to suck up CO₂ and they’re really good at it. And they concentrate it, which no machine can do, and they make it into useful materials, like sugar. They suck up all the CO₂, they fix it, then it goes back up into the atmosphere.”

Obviously it's a bit of a wild card though. Plus it would technically be a GMO, which could pose a potential legal and PR hurdle. But desperate times call for desperate measures and all that.

Whether this is worth starting a topic about, I don't know. It might sink to Page 2 of GenBan within the next 24 hours. But I felt that it seemed intriguing and important enough to warrant discussion.

they'd just get cut down to make room for palm tree farms to get more palm oil.

the "science fx it" angle of combating climate change is interesting. it'll take some crazy ideas to slow things down. i don't think anything we do now will keep coastal areas from being flooded in 10-20 years. 

here's an entertaining read on miami. good read on some of the people there and the mindset of some. kind of fascinating. 

https://popula.com/2019/04/02/heaven-or-high-water/

anyway... i like her idea but there's always those dang unintended consequences.  but what could be worse? total climate collapse or some GMO plants running wild? 

lol.  whenever i hear 'super' in front of something a scientist says i always immediately think of this:

atomic supermen

lol

Ed Wood = classic

Also that Miami article was a good read, how some of the rich people their seem to believe everything's OK, and they think something is being done about sea level rise. Never mind that best case scenario it could become like Venice within the next two or three decades.

And if this Ideal Plants thing actually gets implemented but backfires by creating carnivorous mutant plants or whatever, then we can always stock up on flare guns and flamethrowers.

joyrex's profile pic confirmed prophecy

edit: i'm sorry, i meant avatar

social medias have ruined me in more ways than one

I like the plant idea, but there are some unknown unknowns. How invasive will they be?

As far as transportation is concerned, you can start by using a carbon neutral fuel:

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/06/carbon-engineering-liquid-fuel-carbon-capture-neutral-science/

Also, stop eating as much meat (or any altogether) and use less energy in general. Use fewer materials that use fossil fuels, etc.

One last point: we're social creatures and by proxy value reciprocity. Creating a culture of accountability for each other means we're more likely to hold industry accountable for its waste as well.

Where in the hell are they going to be planting them? You're putting a new species, that doesn't exist in nature, into the environment and expecting that it will be direct cause -> effect. It'd be cool if they engineered these things to grow in deserts with little rain water, but I'm guessing that they'll be half-assed and put in public places and it will be consequences all the way down. i.e. people will die from a severe allergy response to the pollen.

they could put them on building rooftops.. but then the pollen or whatever that they create would be cast far and wide by the high winds. 

what we need is nuclear power. in a big way.  new nuclear technology is way better and safer than the the image that the world has in its mind.  nuclear and lot's of batteries and all the renewables. until we transition to some other source or go 100% renewable.. nuclear is the way to go. 

must watch

https://youtu.be/eDCEjWNGv6Y

as for carbon capture i read a thing on reddit that says if we plant 1.2 trillion trees we can trap enough CO2 to get things headed in the right direction.. and they don't need to be super trees. 

So my understanding after watching the video is that the major reason for the Fukushima Daiichi plant's meltdown was due to its reliance on an outdated water-cooled reactor. But if molten salt reactors are the way to go, then I'm convinced that the risks for setting up new nuclear power plants could be greatly mitigated, and in the long run are arguably necessary for our growing power demands.

And I did read something briefly yesterday about the one trillion trees idea. Hell, if we take an aggressive approach - that is, a multi-pronged attack on carbon emissions with solar, wind, and upgraded nuclear power, along with mass restoration of the planet's flora for the rest of the century...then maybe there's hope. And we might not need "frankenplants" after all.

  On 4/21/2019 at 5:13 AM, Candiru said:

Came her to post this, more or less.

Now this discussion has led to some ambiguity. Is it super mutated plants we need? Or super nuclear plants?

le the industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race :))

edit: No power > Nuclear power. A hedonistic civilized lifestyle is what caused this. We made our beds - we need to lie in them. 

And never wash or change the bed sheets? I never understood the "we fucked up, so let's embrace the consequences and live with them" argument.

  On 4/23/2019 at 4:28 PM, ambermonk said:

And never wash or change the bed sheets? I never understood the "we fucked up, so let's embrace the consequences and live with them" argument.

I'm not coming from a nihilist perspective - quite the opposite actually. Is a lifestyle that leads to environmental, mental, and biological destruction really worth living in the first place? These "alternative energies" are just band-aids placed on a fatal wound.

  On 4/22/2019 at 10:52 AM, Entorwellian said:

Where in the hell are they going to be planting them?

  On 4/22/2019 at 7:41 PM, ignatius said:

they could put them on building rooftops..

have yet to read the article, but an architect's perspective to this point.  a solution in the built environment would be inherently peacemeal as it would be dependent so much on the private sector: ie: incentives or government regulations mandating new buildings to host carbon-sucking plants.  Roof area is a huge unused resource but most buildings arent engineered to add the additional load that plants and soil would add - Solar panels would be a more logical choice here because they are lighter and more adaptable.

The most likely solution to deploy these plants at a large scale would I believe be to engineer a massive greenhouse-like environment in landscapes which are not already covered in plants such as deserts

Re roof area:

What pissed me off most about the massive investments at an RAF base near me over the past decade is the huge roof areas and no solar panels.

I'm sure there's some military hush hush reason for it not being cost effective / permissible though.