Is there any ongoing research to create genetically modified trees that grow fast and absorb more carbon? I would think that this would be a worldwide research agreement, considering how extreme the governments and their scientists consider climate change to be.
Is there any ongoing research to create genetically modified trees that grow fast and absorb more carbon...
Austin Hall
Other urls found in this thread:
futuragene.com
twitter.com
Joseph Cruz
I've seen some papers around on the increased growth rate on some plants under some electricity/static el.field, don't remember details though. Looked interesting enough.
Anycase we'd probably need a fuckton of trees to stop the trend we have now.
Elijah White
The more a plant grows and has mass the more carbon it captures. They are by their very nature carbon capturing devices. Increasing that rate merely means increasing their growth rate.
In South America they are planting GMO eucalyptus trees for the paper industry. Since they need more paper at a faster rate that also means the trees must grow faster and capture more carbon at the same time. While these trees are not being used for bettering the environment through carbon capturing, their initial reason does the same thing.
If the wood is good for building purposes then it can be stored and used for housing and such. That is the only real way to slow down the release of the carbon back into the environment.
Brayden Bennett
Do ancient forests absorb less carbon than a young, growing forest then?
Gavin Cook
Y3s of course but every time we get close the trees become sentient and kill the scientists.
Juan Perry
fun fact: the forests of the pacific northwest are experiencing unprecedented growth due to higher CO2 concetrations in the air. the timber industry literally can't keep up and the USDA is authorizing companies to harvest early.
Dominic Jackson
Yes, because in a new forest there is far less deadfall than in a mature/ancient forest. The deadfall is constantly releasing carbon back into the environment.
We would need to grow a forest, cut it down, store the logs, replant, repeat. So long as the logs never rot, they will never release their stored carbon.
The reason we have more carbon than normal cycling through the environment is because we are digging up ancient trees (oil/coal) and releasing their carbon stores. This is like we have found a whole other forest and are burning it. The world has to cycle 2 sets of forest, the current growing one and the ancient one we are burning.
Jackson Diaz
>a new forest has far less deadfall
Fixed, must have hit the paste button on my mouse.
Jackson James
I swear to god all these who are at front line yelling for gene modification have never kept even an acre of land growing.
You could grow 10'000 km^2 of forest
From each generation plant only seeds from trees with largest rate of carbon capture
And do this for 100 000 years
And you wouldn't make a DENT. Their capture wouldn't increase even by ONE PERCENT.
Doing all that work would require more work than any benefit derived from those trees.
Jaxon Barnes
GMO eucalyptus trees are on a 7 year grow-cut cycle. Meaning those in the pic here are only 7 years old. The company that does this is developing them so they will have a 5 year turnaround. In 100k years that's 14,285 forests for the 7-year cycle and 20,000 forests for the 5-year cycle. (I was looking for weight of the logs per hectare, but not finding good enough info to calculate how much that would be for an accurate carbon count.)
Regardless, it can make a massive dent, but only if the transit of those logs are done in the most efficient means either by massive cargo ship or by train.