Can this Tree Save the World? Shiny Plants as Solution to Climate Change
by Sami Grover, Carrboro, NC, USA on 01.13.08
Talk of geoengineering always kicks up an interesting debate on TreeHugger. For some people, the idea of artificially altering the earth’s climate to slow the progress of climate change is akin to planetary ER – we stabilize the patient while we try to get her back to optimal health. For others it’s just another example of human arrogance, and a dangerous distraction from the key task of cutting greenhouse gases.
Whether or not schemes like iron seeding the oceans, launching giant space mirrors, simulating volcanic eruptions, or placing synthetic blankets over the alps are morally justified, we also have to ask another question: will they work? The latest concept being touted for returning sunlight to where it came from seems particularly suspect to us: growing shinier plants.
According to the Guardian, researchers from the University of California, Irvine, claim that by encouraging farmers to grow shinier crops, temperature in agricultural regions could be reduced by as much as 1.9 degrees Celsius. Apparently the idea is not without precedent either, as a new soy bean variety that was bred to be pest resistant is also said to reflect 5% more sunlight than normal.
Frank discussion among the TreeHugger team has thrown up some awkward questions however – if the crops are grown purely for their reflective properties, then wouldn't the areas needing to be covered be huge? But if we are talking about breeding food, or other important crops to reflect more sunlight, then surely there would be a negative impact on productivity, which in turn would lead to more land being turned over to agricultural production. After all, isn’t absorbing sunlight kind of a core part of what being a plant is all about?
The researchers touting this idea are not discussing it further until they publish in an academic journal later this year, so we are a little mystified on some of the detail. Until then, given that the alarming news about the accelerating rate of climate change keeps on rolling in, we will try to keep an open mind. We will not, however, be giving up our bikes or CFLs any time soon. We might consider painting our roof white though. ::The Guardian::via site visit::
I am cautiously pro-climate jiggering. But only in ways that are immediately reversible and don't carry a risk of getting out of control. Space mirrors, blankets, and the like, are all easily controlled and reversed. Biological approaches are much more difficult to turn on/off, and carry the risk of getting out of control.
I'm not convinced about this. Plants sequester the energy of the sun whereas if the sunlight gets reflected at the earth's surface it gets a second chance of heating up the air between the surface and space. When reflected it also has a second chance at breaking down the ozone layer.
A much more efficient way would probably be some way of planting deserts so the energy that now gets trapped and released as heat could instead be sequestered by plants.
Brilliant...so you reflect the energy that could otherwise help the plant absorb CO2!
/sarcasm
It seems like the idea is going in the less important direction. The major problem today is CO2 from burning fossil fuels. Since windturbine energy costs keeps going down 1 cent every 2-3 years then within 5 years (and possible already now) then electricty from wind turbines will be cheaper than even coal. When that happens we won't need nuclear, gas, coal or oil.
Europe has a huge advantage over America which is....high taxes on gasoline. Therefore, electricy driven cars will be become much faster competetive in Europe than in America.
Europe could go a step further ahead and reduce taxes on electric and hybrid cars - which they probably won't - but, that would surely help to make hybrid cars competetive with their 8500 USD gap between normal and a good hybrid car.
Shinier plants? High-tech solutions? Why contemplate practical low-cost solutions to global climate change when there's a glut of over-the-top ideas that make better press?
There is a fast-growing plant that makes an excellent carbon sink, produces food, fuel, building materials, fiber for paper and clothing, and a host of other products to help build a sustainable global economy. This single species has the potential to literally save the world from global warming. Unfortunately, no one wants to talk about this plant or even consider its potential because, in many parts of the world, it's illegal to grow it--cannabis hemp.
This seems like a huge scam to me...rather than looking at the root causes for global warming and trying to work on them we're supposed to spend trillions on blankets to cover the alps? I think it's a mistake to assume we can spend our way out of the problem. Shiny plants just don't sound like a useful development to me.
I don't think we should bioengineer plants to be shinier, and I don't think we should grow plants that barely have a use beyond being shiny, but if there is a shinier variety of a plant that is very similar to the less shiny one that's already being grown, then why not?
Here's a solution along the same lines - paint roofs (or the portion of the roofs that isn't taken up by a green roof) white. It will increase Earth's albedo.
I don't think we should bioengineer plants to be shinier, and I don't think we should grow plants that barely have a use beyond being shiny, but if there is a shinier variety of a plant that is very similar to the less shiny one that's already being grown, then why not?
Here's a solution along the same lines - paint roofs (or the portion of the roofs that isn't taken up by a green roof) white. It will increase Earth's albedo.
I am not sure about shinier plants.
I live in a rural areal where there are a good number of trees. My property is almost 9 acres, 7 of woods that are mostly pine, that are dying from beetle infestation.
My partner and I have thought about this for awhile , long before we managed to find a place that had been in foreclosure. Our idea was to plant evergreen trees that are fire, insect and disease resistant. What we came up with were giant sequoia which are fire, insect and disease resistant, they also soak up lots of co2 and will shade, plus we should be able to grow edible timber grade bamboo. We are in north-east central North Carolina.
These plants do take a lot of water, but the other hand they should be able to reach the water table and pulll up water to create a subclimate.
what are shinier plants anyway? what genus of plants are they supposed to be from?
I'm with the sarcastic and cynical on this one. It sounds like yet another (irrelevent ) grab for attention and bucks on bogus lines.
In Australia we are PAYING ( as taxpayers ) 300 million for the massive and wealthy coal industry to develop "clean coal technology" Poor babies only make hundreds of billions a year, they couldn't be expected to fund their own future survival could they?
Not to mention that well known and also new innovative ways would be done NOW to improve the relative performance of coal fired stations. None of these things are being done here that I know of.
So many things that DESERVE our tax support are being pushed aside in favour of these gross and unconscionable gratuitous hand outs to the worst industries.
In this case, I would not be suprised if this shiny plants technology ends up supporting the agenda of Monsanto and similar agro chemical Nazis.
Why can't things like biogas solar and wind get support? Oh right its too expensive. Hand outs to major corporations are somehow ALWAYS "affordable", and any vote buying /pork barreling is also cheap, apparently...!
My country spent $33billion AUD on vote buying at the elections this year, maybe a new record for us. ( both sides equalled this or better..)
This iswrong and sick. IF we spent one tenth this much on clean energy, how many would say "OH its too expensive, you are ruining the economy"?
( which of course would ALSO be complete BS..)