0
2

[–] LazarusLong 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Bet it takes up less space than 88 thousand trees.

Also, how the journalist arrived at the $17k figure is beyond retarded.

"You can sponsor charities to plant trees for you at a grand total of 20 cents per tree."

That doesn't mean it only takes 20 cents to grow a full fucking tree.

Also, that figure is not accurate per the charity's own website...

There is a minimum order of 1,500 trees. This requires a minimum of 2.5 acres of land to be planted. The cost per tree planted varies considerably, but generally falls in the range of $0.20 to $2.50 per tree.

There are special programs available to help offset the cost of tree planting. Staff from the NVCA will be able to advise you if you are eligible. Grant rates for the various programs range from 25% to 95% of the cost of planting.

So, not only can it go up to 2.50 per tree, but you have to provide 2.5 acres of land for them to come plant them all on, and they're very clear that low expectations should be maintained for overall tree survival.

This is also only eligible to specific areas.

Seedlings will require some sort of weed control for a period of up to 4 years after planting.

Ah, I guess free labor was included in the $17,640 figure as well.

I'm all for planting trees and revitalizing the American wilderness, regardless of the veracity of various climate change claims. Its no fun hunting deer or camping in a parking lot.

I'm also very much for questioning the motivations and efficacy of various government initiatives, especially when they're sinking tons of money into it.

However, this article is a fucking joke.

0
0

[–] Thalean [S] ago 

You're right. Building carbon capture plants and then releasing the carbon back into the atmosphere after the soda can is opened up is a much better idea, and planting trees might cost up to $40,000.

Then again, they might be free if we got prisoners to do the work as a form of community service. So who knows. I'm sure we could find a way to bring the costs down to nil.

2
2

[–] StuffThatSandwich 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago  (edited ago)

It goes without saying that this may just be the worst idea that liberal environmentalists have ever had—or ever will have.

Why is that?

Because trees exist.

Trees are great. They’re beautiful, they provide shade and fruits, they smell nice—but most importantly, they take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and replace it with breathable oxygen.

They’re good at it too. In fact, it only takes an average of 98 trees to remove 1 ton of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere per year.

That means that this plant is worth only 88,200 trees per year.

Oh really? So this thing does the work of 88,200 trees. Remind me, how much space do 88,200 trees require. Well, let's ignore that that varies with the tree's final size for a moment, and go with the smallest figure I could find in a minute of googling, which is 2.5m apart.

How much space does this plant take up? I can't find a figure in the article, but it sure looks like it's a heck of a lot smaller than 220 square km.

So something that does the work of the only other current option in a minuscule fraction of the space is the, "the worst idea that liberal environmentalists have ever had—or ever will have"?

What will happen to all of this carbon dioxide?

Some of it will be cycled into nearby greenhouses to help the plants grow better (ironic), which will increase crop yields.

k, sounds good to me?

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm#intro

Carbon dioxide enters into the plant through the stomatal openings by the process of diffusion. Stomata are specialized cells located mainly on the underside of the leaves in the epidermal layer. The cells open and close allowing gas exchange to occur. The concentration of CO2 outside the leaf strongly influences the rate of CO2 uptake by the plant. The higher the CO2 concentration outside the leaf, the greater the uptake of CO2 by the plant. Light levels, leaf and ambient air temperatures, relative humidity, water stress and the CO2 and oxygen (O2) concentration in the air and the leaf, are many of the key factors that determine the opening and closing of the stomata.

Ambient CO2 level in outside air is about 340 ppm by volume. All plants grow well at this level but as CO2 levels are raised by 1,000 ppm photosynthesis increases proportionately resulting in more sugars and carbohydrates available for plant growth. Any actively growing crop in a tightly clad greenhouse with little or no ventilation can readily reduce the CO2 level during the day to as low as 200 ppm.


According to Spencer P Morrison, this paper’s editor-in-chief, the Hinwil carbon plant may be “the worst investment in human history”, and is “symptomatic of a complete disregard for common sense, and utter contempt for the working man”.

Thanks for your shitty opinion Spencer P Morrison, it goes along well with your shit journalism.

Fossil fuels are not only more efficient and cheaper than renewable energy, but they’re also better for the environment, when you consider all the other factors.

l o l

There's so much more going wrong in this fucking travesty, but that's all the time I'm willing to shit all over this.

How does fucking garbage like this article gain a single upvoat?

1
0

[–] kamtsa 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

The plant does its main job, making some people feel good about themselves.

It's like playing slots in vegas, you don't need to win to get entertainment value for your money.

2
0

[–] hey_girls_pm_me_toes 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

Some of it will be cycled into nearby greenhouses to help the plants grow better (ironic), which will increase crop yields.

So why don't we just leave it in the atmosphere?

0
3

[–] StuffThatSandwich 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm#intro

Carbon dioxide enters into the plant through the stomatal openings by the process of diffusion. Stomata are specialized cells located mainly on the underside of the leaves in the epidermal layer. The cells open and close allowing gas exchange to occur. The concentration of CO2 outside the leaf strongly influences the rate of CO2 uptake by the plant. The higher the CO2 concentration outside the leaf, the greater the uptake of CO2 by the plant. Light levels, leaf and ambient air temperatures, relative humidity, water stress and the CO2 and oxygen (O2) concentration in the air and the leaf, are many of the key factors that determine the opening and closing of the stomata.

Ambient CO2 level in outside air is about 340 ppm by volume. All plants grow well at this level but as CO2 levels are raised by 1,000 ppm photosynthesis increases proportionately resulting in more sugars and carbohydrates available for plant growth. Any actively growing crop in a tightly clad greenhouse with little or no ventilation can readily reduce the CO2 level during the day to as low as 200 ppm.

That's why.

3
-1

[–] hey_girls_pm_me_toes 3 points -1 points (+2|-3) ago  (edited ago)

That's why this machine is useless. Get all the welfare hogs out of the section 8 houses , give them a shovel and a wheelbarrow full of saplings. Problem solved.

2
-1

[–] eyeVoated 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

The powers that should not be want to control all life and energy on the planet.

2
0

[–] hey_girls_pm_me_toes 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

And we paid for it

0
2

[–] bluenova123 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Now if it can extract carbon and shape it into specific structures it may be worth it, just because we need a way to cheaply mass produce carbon nanotubes if we ever want to have a space elevator.

Though this would be because of non environmental reasons, just to get a valuable resource. However as far as I can tell this plant does not even try to do anything useful like that.

1
0

[–] hey_girls_pm_me_toes 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Why? So the Convenient can slice through it?

1
1

[–] Blinddoge 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago 

Definitley has no ulterior functions massive plant and the 'only' thing it does is catch carbon. /s

3
-1

[–] eyeVoated 3 points -1 points (+2|-3) ago 

The powers that should not be want to control all life and energy on the planet. Geoengineering is big shadow-op/business in US--but all you have to do is look up and watch the planes crop-dusting our property on a weekly basis. Consider cross posting to v/conspiracy.

3
-2

[–] 1473916381 3 points -2 points (+1|-3) ago 

What a waste of money, just plant trees, requires no tech and looks way better anyways.