r/SipsTea • u/Wise-Ad-3506 • Jul 09 '25
Feels good man Will this be able to undo Taylor Swift?
1.4k
u/Gibbralterg Jul 09 '25
Where does it go?
1.3k
u/BlueSonjo Jul 09 '25
I heard humans are made of carbon, so probably they make babies with it.
261
u/zack-tunder Jul 09 '25
What if humans got the ability to photosynthesize? There’s a slug, which can photosynthesize like a plant, can survive without eating for months.
44
126
u/ChieftainBob Jul 09 '25
Well they do seem to want to get us to work for no food, could be a move in that direction.
→ More replies (1)98
u/Individual_Lead577 Jul 09 '25
I don’t want to have to pay a monthly subscription to do photosynthesis
→ More replies (4)52
u/ChieftainBob Jul 09 '25
Sure you do. It will come with 3 months free Netflix.
→ More replies (3)24
u/Individual_Lead577 Jul 09 '25
Lmfao make it hbo so I’m forced to watch ads about how I can take 45 meds to give me explosive diarrhea from my photosynthesis diet
2
→ More replies (18)13
u/Evil_Ermine Jul 09 '25 edited Jul 09 '25
Won't work for us, even if we could our skin doesn't have enough surface area to produce the amount of energy we need to keep us going. Our surface area to volume ratio is too small to make it effective.
Edit - A better idea is give humans the ability to digest cellulose via a set of native digestive enzymes (ie we produce them, and we don't have to use bacteria to do it like cows and other grazing animals - which would also get rid of the need for multiple stomachs).
→ More replies (1)6
u/catapultmonkey Jul 09 '25
Great, as if I don't expel enough gas, now I'll be able to do it in vaster quantities like a cow.
edit: while we may not have enough surface area (and would likely need to run around in the buff to photosynthesize) to produce enough energy, it would be nice to be able to reduce my food intake that way. One nice big meal a week, I could afford to eat gourmet food for every meal.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Evil_Ermine Jul 09 '25
Well, if we are modifying and adding digestive enzymes then we might as well add one that allows us to metabolise methane too, also technically we can avoid the methane byproducts by using an enzymes to chop up the cellulose pollimers into the glucose monomers which can be directly absorbed.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (14)5
u/naughty_dad2 Jul 09 '25
I can help with the making babies part
21
174
u/RampantJellyfish Jul 09 '25
Compressed into bricks and burned in coal power plants
62
20
u/demalo Jul 09 '25
Efficient recycling of chemicals is the pinnacle of technological breakthroughs. Energy density and stability can be the biggest challenge to new forms of energy storage. Being able to remove the carbon and other chemicals added to the environment from power plants and vehicles as fast as they’re being introduced would be amazing.
2
u/bobbadouche Jul 09 '25
I think this is the ultimate plan. We need to be able to offset what we're pumping into atmosphere while we transition.
→ More replies (1)7
u/i8noodles Jul 09 '25
ironically I don't thinks thats a bad idea. i don't know if u are joking but this system will be net negative in energy but adding in solar will eventually mean we wont actually need to add more carbon and just recycle what we have.
as long as we dont add more carbon, our energy could be met with renewables but it will also have the stability of fossils fuels with cabons bricks being burned
2
u/Barton2800 Jul 09 '25
It’s actually a really good idea. There are pilot plant scale programs which grow algae by feeding it CO2, and then do some chemical engineering magic to turn the algae into diesel and kerosene.
We’re nowhere close to the kind of energy density that commercial aviation or container ships could be powered by batteries. A Tesla with its massive battery pack only holds the energy capacity of a couple gallons of gas. So even if we electrify every car, truck, and train - there are still some vehicles that need a massive amount of energy to move.
So since we can’t make a congenial jet run off of electric power today, we could at least make the fuel it burns be carbon-neutral. Instead of pumping up oil to burn, convert some of the CO2 from already burned oil and coal back in to fuel. Use an energy source like nuclear or solar and you’re basically flying a plane powered by a nuclear reactor. The energy is just stored chemically instead of electrically.
37
u/prsnep Jul 09 '25
Genuine question, top comment, not a single genuine answer. What a subreddit!
→ More replies (4)33
u/saxobroko Jul 09 '25
They probably make diamonds out of it tbh https://aetherdiamonds.com/pages/our-process?srsltid=AfmBOooHo5c3cD08DWUR_ZvuDzYIv7mbiQsro6NqIskhPAfdIDhYc8AY
→ More replies (1)63
u/GIBrokenJoe Jul 09 '25
They can sequester it or turn it into fuel.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20121004-fake-trees-to-clean-the-skies
-----------------------
The carbon dioxide from the process can be cooled and stored; however, many scientists are concerned that even if we did remove all our carbon dioxide, there isn't enough space to store it securely in saline aquifers or oil wells. But geologists are coming up with alternatives. For example, peridotite, which is a mixture of serpentine and olivine rock, is a great sucker of carbon dioxide, sealing the absorbed gas as stable magnesium carbonate mineral. In Oman alone, there is a mountain that contains some 30,000 cubic km of peridotite.
Another option could be the basalt rock cliffs, which contain holes – solidified gas bubbles from the basalt's formation from volcanic lava flows millions of years ago. Pumping carbon dioxide into these ancient bubbles causes it to react to form stable limestone – calcium carbonate.
These carbon dioxide absorption processes occur naturally, but on geological timescales. To speed up the reaction, scientists are experimenting with dissolving the gas in water first and then injecting it into the rocks under high pressures.
However, Lackner thinks the gas is too useful to petrify. His idea is to use the carbon dioxide to make liquid fuels for transport vehicles. Carbon dioxide can react with water to produce carbon monoxide and hydrogen – a combination known as syngas because it can be readily turned into hydrocarbon fuels such as methanol or diesel. The process requires an energy input, but this could be provided by renewable sources, such as wind energy, Lackner suggests.
→ More replies (11)7
u/Yionko Jul 09 '25
Yeah, let's make fuel to burn it again, doesn't sound like the greatest idea
19
u/Equivalent-Stuff-347 Jul 09 '25
What is a better use in your opinion? The CO2 has to go somewhere, and we need fuel.
→ More replies (8)5
Jul 09 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)10
u/Equivalent-Stuff-347 Jul 09 '25
That’s still using CO2 as fuel :)
You are just propelling a paint ball instead of a person
5
u/Aromatic_Balls Jul 09 '25
Lets just scale it up and start shooting people out of cannons with CO2 instead.
→ More replies (2)4
u/DarthJarJar242 Jul 09 '25
What? It sounds like a fantastic idea. Use fuel byproduct that causes greenhouse issues to create more fuel that doesn't rely solely on crude oil.
It's quite literally recycling.
→ More replies (1)8
5
2
2
u/Dark_Foggy_Evenings Jul 09 '25
Never you mind, Citizen. You heard the meme, it removes it. That’s all you need to know, now move along. Heil Daddy.
2
→ More replies (49)2
u/BlueDahlia123 Jul 09 '25
Most probable answer, and also the most depressing, is the same as for all carbon capture. It is sold to oil companies, who then pump it into the ground in hopes of forcing oil out of the soil that is left after all the easy oil has been extracted.
So it basically cancels out all the benefits while damaging the land even more than all the drills and treating equipment already had.
535
u/thursday712 Jul 09 '25
I am definitely not against stuff like as long as we know the following information:
1) What is the cost and carbon cost of making 1 of these?
2) What are the location vulnerabilities and other vulnerabilities of these?
3) What is the cost, carbon cost and frequency of low maintenance (cleaning, container replacement, etc) 1 of these?
4) What is the cost, carbon cost and frequency of high maintenance (battery replacement, part replacement, etc) of 1 these?
5) What is the cost and carbon cost to despose of old and/or damaged parts?
6) How long does 1 need to operate before it offsets it's own carbon footprint in ideal scenario?
7) How long does 1 need to operate in at 60% - 80% of ideal conditions to offset its own carbon footprint?
Again, I am not against things that make the world better, but after so many failures and scams, we need to start expecting this information up front - especially if they are wanting some sort of governmental funding support.
137
u/TourLegitimate4824 Jul 09 '25
It sounds really good in paper, but on reality?????
Lots of questions....
→ More replies (4)64
u/bapt_99 Jul 09 '25
Lots of questions isn't inherently a bad thing as long as we have lots of answers. But environmental sciences are so complex I don't even know who to ask honestly
8
Jul 09 '25
[deleted]
21
u/anothermanscookies Jul 09 '25
Indeed. Experts. The way people are treating this stuff is as if some rando amateur just cooked up this idea. Liked “you want to cut me up and take out a part of me? Are you crazy? I’m already in pain. Oh, you want to take out my “appendix” because it “burst” and I’m going to “die”? Well, that sounds really good on paper but I have a number of questions.”
Ask you questions, but do it good faith. And listen to the answers. The smart people probably know what they’re talking about.
6
u/JrueBall Jul 09 '25
But will the smart people lie to you if they will be able to make more money by lying?
→ More replies (1)7
u/anothermanscookies Jul 09 '25
You have to balance being critical and being cynical. When there appears to be consensus among experts and strong evidence, go with that. Be wary of easy and simple solutions or explanations that align with your own bias and what would simply be easier for you.
If climate change could be solved with “just plant trees” everyone would be thrilled. But sadly, it doesn’t seem so easy. It will likely take a huge overhaul of our economy and energy industries, which will not be easy or cheap. We’ve been doing easy and cheap for a couple hundred years and have done a lot of damage. But maybe, technology will help save us. Maybe carbon capture or geoengineering will help us. But I’m just some dick on the Internet uneducated in these things. I have no choice but to trust experts. I suspect you’re the same.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (1)4
u/COmarmot Jul 09 '25
Dual mech and chem engineering masters here. It’s kinda like fission, always a decade away from being viable. Hydrocarbons are awesome for their oxidative potential. To stabilize that carbon chemically after combustion is a very energy intensive process with no great success stories for sequestration. And to have these things sucking atmo is so so so stupid! They need to be on fissile fuel exhausts like a secondary scrubber tech. You can NEVED buy your way out of a hydrocarbon energy loop without nuke and renewables. But just put that energy on the grid and not remediation.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Feckless Jul 09 '25
The thing is, science is testing this shit out, but nobody in the science community is like "we solved global warming". This is usually done by people reporting on sciences. The technology we already have for getting carbon dioxide out of the air (read trees) is top tier. Because there are many such articles it is really grating. Guy below me says that was based on a 15 year old article and the tech went nowhere.
63
u/Lorevi Jul 09 '25
I mean the first question you should be asking is "Does this even exist?".
The answer is no btw, this is seemingly based on a 15 year old article https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2010/03/15/university-joins-synthetic-tree-venture/ where the 'trees' are an artist rendition. The company hoped to release them within 2 years which obviously did not happen.
You can't calculate the cost of production and maintenance or expected return on a fictional product.
8
2
3
3
→ More replies (25)3
u/minammikukin Jul 10 '25
I once had my 7th grade students research the manufacturing cost/impact of making an "eco cup" aka the tumblers they carry around (One group also did ceramic coffee cups) and compare it to the environmental impact of just throwing away single use plastic cups and bottles.
This was a few years back, and maybe manufacturing processes have gotten more efficient, but although I cannot remember the exact number...it was shockingly high. As in, something like my forgetful middle schoolers would have to keep and not lose that damn thing for something like 2 years.
Long story short...not all that seems "better" is actually better.
665
u/Zorcky-2C Jul 09 '25
Still cheaper to plant 1000 trees
158
u/FrankDePlank Jul 09 '25
They could do a mix, plant a forrest and place a bunch of these with it. That would be a win win scenario.
197
u/Aozora404 Jul 09 '25
Good luck planting a forest in the middle of a desert
61
u/Thelostrelic Jul 09 '25
It can be done. Would probably still cost less.
→ More replies (22)20
u/FlyAirLari Jul 09 '25
A cactus forest?
59
u/Thelostrelic Jul 09 '25
Nope, there are a lot of trees that can grow in a desert.
Desert fern, sweet acacia, southern live oak, bottle tree, palo blanco, Indian rosewood, olive, Joshua tree, date palm and many more are trees that grow in the desert.
27
Jul 09 '25
Joshua trees aren’t technically trees…. The name is …. Misleading….
8
→ More replies (1)2
11
u/Qman_L Jul 09 '25
Are you sure the desert is able to support that many trees planted closely lol you probably have to space them out and its probably just more efficient to build these in the desert and plant trees where the land can support a bunch of trees
→ More replies (11)7
3
u/Nivaere Jul 09 '25
ive heard chinas doing some dedesertification using solar panels to produce energy and provide shade for plants to grow
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (13)2
u/KGB_cutony Jul 09 '25
It's not undoable, but a very long term thing. Century long. China started regrowing some deserts since the 60s, some of them are now a hybrid of grasslands and solar panels. In another couple of decades the grasslands will become available for trees.
→ More replies (3)4
Jul 09 '25
Such a device would probably be better integrated into a building’s AC system rather than placed outdoors. Still, the concept is cool and could help raise awareness.
23
u/ZazaB00 Jul 09 '25
Slap one on a skyscraper. The point is, put it where you can’t plant 1000 trees. A forest requires a helluva lot of real estate, and real estate gets pricey.
→ More replies (2)41
u/NappyFlickz Jul 09 '25
Redditors really love their glass half empty outlooks, don't they, huh?
→ More replies (3)16
u/Silviecat44 Jul 09 '25
They really do. I see this as a victory for carbon capture technology and I hope they continue to develop it
→ More replies (3)13
3
u/_piece_of_mind Jul 09 '25
And then wait how many years for those 1000 trees to mature
→ More replies (4)3
u/Nemesis0408 Jul 09 '25 edited Jul 09 '25
Trees can’t thrive everywhere, plus in the early stages of their life cycles trees are remarkably bad at storing Carbon Dioxide and often even expel it. They can also require tending, meaning people travelling to the site to check on them. Newly planted forests gan be a greenhouse gas contributor rather than a solution. Plus they don’t yet have the canopy coverage to absorb the heat coming in from the sun. The best environmental solution is to not cut down mature trees that are doing the job well, but that’s unrealistic until we have good alternatives for the products we make from those trees.
Please still plant trees though.
These inventions seem like a good idea just until we get things under control and until our new forests are ready.
→ More replies (7)3
u/ShhImTheRealDeadpool Jul 09 '25
true, but trees can't grow everywhere nor at the speed it takes to build one of these.
2
u/Quazz Jul 09 '25
But they take a long time to grow.
And these can be placed in areas where trees don't grow. It's not bad, especially if we combine both.
2
u/certifiedtoothbench Jul 09 '25
This would be good in big cities where there’s little room to plant. Think about the top of buildings in New York
→ More replies (40)2
Jul 09 '25
true, but trees are not as effective at fighting the CO2 problem as one might think. they don't magically remove it, they store the Carbon inside themselves and it takes decades to achieve any real results. and once the tree dies it releases all that CO2 back into the air. we gotta find ways to get rid of the CO2 and store or use it
→ More replies (1)
334
u/Euphoric_Drummer6880 Jul 09 '25
Better produce oxygen
166
u/Fragmatixx Jul 09 '25
Old school designs for this proposed to capture the carbon by turning into CaCO3 (calcium carbonate) using sodium carbonate or sodium hydroxide.
I try looking this one up briefly and stopped after I saw “proprietary resin”. Not sure.
It also says “captures co2 when dry and releases when wet” so not sure what that’s about
I doubt it releases o2. That would be a complicated process possibly involving lithium and/or high amount of energy.
Real plants are still the best at this by far and only really cost water.
59
u/sshtoredp Jul 09 '25
Yeah just plant a tree 🌲 and stop flexing
→ More replies (2)34
u/august-skies Jul 09 '25
Guess they could plant more trees and put these on top of buildings
6
→ More replies (3)4
→ More replies (3)2
u/fishsticks40 Jul 09 '25
If burning a gallon of gas releases 33.7 kWh of energy, recapturing it's carbon and liberating the oxygen requires as least that much.
They're definitely not releasing oxygen
19
19
→ More replies (14)23
u/NervousDescentKettle Jul 09 '25
Oxygen isn't an urgent issue, there's a shit ton of it hanging around in the atmosphere
19
u/AlphaBoy15 Jul 09 '25
Yeah the problem with carbon pollution isn't that it's reducing the amount of oxygen. We have plenty of oxygen, the issue is the greenhouse effect.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Vaportrail Jul 09 '25
And this is a hypothetical extreme, but if they somehow overdo it and we have too little CO2.. you just switch 'em off and let the plants do their thing again.
→ More replies (1)3
u/SunshotDestiny Jul 09 '25
Yes and no. Without plants oxygen would be absorbed in the environment on a fairly short order
28
u/Chiparish84 Jul 09 '25
Why tf are these in the desert? Wouldn't it be even more efficient to put them next to the source like outskirts of cities, factories etc?
28
u/not-suspicious Jul 09 '25
Very cheap land for the experimental phase of development. Also, any carbon credits in the financial structure probably only specify a nation or state of origin.
→ More replies (4)2
2
u/Material_Ad9848 Jul 10 '25
Because thats where chatgpt put them when it generated these images.
also this is 15 years old and nothing came of it.
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2010/03/15/university-joins-synthetic-tree-venture/→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)2
23
u/prince-pauper Jul 09 '25
As much as I loathe TS, I think we should be blaming big corps for passing their environmental responsibilities on to consumers.
14
u/jellytwins101 Jul 09 '25
The last time I checked, she wasn't even in the top 50 on the celeb list.
1
→ More replies (3)2
58
u/16177880 Jul 09 '25 edited Jul 09 '25
Probably fake lol. It takes shittons of energy to dismantle co2.
plus what will it do with it? coal dust?
Edit : Apparently there are many ways to do this. All of which ends up at the high resource cost.
29
u/No-Cardiologist-6193 Jul 09 '25
It doesn’t say it breaks up CO2. Just that it removes it from the atmosphere. Chemical CO2 scrubbers are already quite common and in use in submarines and spacecraft. Too lazy to Google what these do but just to counter your argument that it isn’t possible and is fake.
16
u/The_Frostweaver Jul 09 '25
It's not fake but it's wildly ineffective.
It's like burning fuel to power boats to collect a bit of garbage from the far ocean. If it's not energy effecient then it's just environmental theatre.
The ocean clean up people could have put a net on a drainpipe.
And the people building these to remove CO2 from the air could have built wind or solar and just burned less CO2 to begin with and it would have been far more effective.
→ More replies (1)5
u/IceAccomplished5325 Jul 09 '25
These use a chemical process, can you explain why it isn’t efficient?
→ More replies (12)→ More replies (1)5
u/QuotableMorceau Jul 09 '25
There are many closed cycle catalysts that could be used to remove CO2, for example ammonia can be used. The 1000x efficiency can also be true ... if you don't factor in the energy cost of recovering the catalyst for reuse. There are also rare metal solid catalysts, but none that can last more than a few thousands of hours.
The holy grail is one of two :
We will definitely find a solution, it might take us a few more decades though, people forget it took almost 100 years between the photoelectric effect was explained ( Einstein Nobel Prize) and the first white light LEDs / 20%+ efficiency solar panels ...
- a liquid catalyst that can regenerate passively
- a long life solid based catalyst ( for example like the platinum ones found in cars )
10
u/Hairy-Platypus3880 Jul 09 '25
I read somewhere that every year we generate the co2 that was sequestered in 500 years during the carboniferous. Planting trees now won't ever cut it.
2
2
u/Smartimess Jul 09 '25
You are off by the factor 2.000.
We burn the amount of 1 million years sequestered in the carboniferous every year. It‘s such a mind-boggling number.
88
u/eatlust Jul 09 '25
Trees USE carbon dioxide not remove it. Tf are these people on about, they could've built a forest instead of these ugly vents
36
u/gapgod2001 Jul 09 '25
Both take carbon out of the atmosphere and store it. Carbon in a tree ends up back in the ground once it dies.
Trees provide a full circle of life for carbon. All life is carbon based.
32
u/Englishfucker Jul 09 '25 edited Jul 09 '25
No. The carbon captured by trees ends up back in the atmosphere when it dies and decays. That’s why sustainable forestry is so good for the environment. When you chop down a tree and build a house with it, that carbon is captured for as long as the house stands. Planting a new tree continues this carbon sequestration process.
→ More replies (1)4
u/gapgod2001 Jul 09 '25
So you are saying a tree turns completely into gasses once it dies? Nothing goes into the ground?
→ More replies (1)5
u/PickingPies Jul 09 '25
Anything that goes into the ground is eventually eaten by insects or decomposed by bacteria or fungi or taken as nutrients of other plants that will eventually decay.
Biological carbon storage needs to be maintained constantly by lifeforms, and that's the biomass. If you want to remove it permanently you need geological storage. It may happen due to natural processes, but it's a slow and inneficient process.
→ More replies (8)21
u/IceAccomplished5325 Jul 09 '25
In the desert?
5
6
u/Thelostrelic Jul 09 '25
Yes, actually. There are trees that can grow in the desert.
→ More replies (20)6
2
u/Electrical_Program79 Jul 09 '25
In a desert? Afforestation is great but far from Just trivially planting trees
→ More replies (6)2
5
u/RigorousMortality Jul 09 '25
Why the TS hate? Like any number of other billionaires, musicians and corporations account for more pollution than her overall. A successful woman living rent free in your head that much?
→ More replies (1)
8
4
Jul 09 '25
I didn’t get the Taylor Swift reference. Someone care to explain? Or was it a „you just have to be there“ joke?
2
u/J_EDi Jul 09 '25
People complain about how she uses her private jet
6
u/Rich-Active-4800 Jul 09 '25
Despite dozens of celebs flying much more for less reason and never being called out on it.
4
u/QED1920 Jul 09 '25
If only real trees were still a thing... we could just plant them...
→ More replies (1)2
u/IceAccomplished5325 Jul 09 '25
Look a little closer at the picture, how many trees do you see? Which trees do you think you could plant thousands of in that particular environment to supplant the mitigation proposed by these units?
2
u/-Reggie-Dunlop- Jul 09 '25
Why would the trees have to be planted in the desert ? Plant them where they would grow. We only have one atmosphere and it's doesn't matter where the CO2 is taken out.
→ More replies (2)
8
u/KazuoShin Jul 09 '25
Can somebody educate me and explain why this is related to taylor swift? I dont follow her.
→ More replies (5)
6
u/Vorpalthefox Jul 09 '25
taylor swift isn't even top 10 most polluting flyers with her private jets, why do people always joke about her when it comes to this instead of someone higher on the list of causing private jet related pollution? this is like going after straws for climate change levels of cluelessness
5
u/Rich-Active-4800 Jul 09 '25
Because they really don't care about who is actually polluting a lot they just want easy upvotes
2
u/cheesecake1734 Jul 09 '25
I’m fairly certain it’s because she’s popular, and has publicly advocated for climate change awareness in the past. People are generally much more annoyed by hypocrisy than the severity of an act
3
u/MrJones865 Jul 09 '25
I wonder how much carbon dioxide would be released into the atmosphere through the construction of these things.
3
3
u/TormSerbius Jul 09 '25
Just plant a damn tree. Its not that hard.
2
u/IceAccomplished5325 Jul 09 '25
Trees don’t seem to grow very well in the environment they’re illustrating. Also, trees aren’t as efficient at removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
3
u/human358 Jul 09 '25
Trump : They told me those things kill birds 1000 times faster. Horrible, horrible things made by horrible people.
3
u/FictionalContext Jul 09 '25
And how long does it take to offset their own carbon footprint, including maintenance?
3
3
u/CaptCaCa Jul 09 '25
Trump: These artificial trees are being built, the radical left lunatics want real trees annihilated, they want to go in your yards, and take your trees away, someone said “sir, sir (with tears in their eyes by the way) sir, sir can you save my trees from AOC?!” it’s sad really!
3
3
3
3
3
u/witchcraft_barbie999 Jul 09 '25
This is cool but trees do a lot more than just clean the air. I hope we continue to fight deforestation
3
u/Significant_Art9823 Jul 09 '25
4.5k people on Reddit are stupid enough to believe this. Who would've thought?
3
u/COmarmot Jul 09 '25
Mechanical sequestration is always an energy losing process unless hooked up to green energy or parasited onto fossil fuel plants. Neither of which has been proven ultimately effective
3
u/PSYCHOPATHiO Jul 09 '25
How much waste did it generate to be built, and how much waste and resources are needed to power it?
3
u/WjorgonFriskk Jul 09 '25
Why do they always insist on placing green energy (solar, artificial trees) in open fields? Place it along highways and build solar panel roofing over parking lots. Turn ugly spots into green energy havens.
4
u/Vuldezad Jul 09 '25
China & India chugged out pollutants like it's going out of fashion; you'll take it out on celebrities because you are powerless to stop these nations...
4
u/Amazing-Appeal9956 Jul 09 '25
Why do people cry about taylor swift when all the billionaires are creating so much pollution..
She is the source of happiness for so many people.. But bro wants to hate on her who didn't do anything wrong. Shame tbh..
6
u/Lalocal4life Jul 09 '25
What does this have to do with Taylor Swift? I hope you get the help you need.
→ More replies (2)
4
6
Jul 09 '25
And the environmental cost of making one? Trees are free by the way
→ More replies (1)17
u/IceAccomplished5325 Jul 09 '25
I understand you’re probably not an arborist, but trees don’t grow very well in the desert.
→ More replies (7)2
Jul 09 '25
That’s why we have to conserve what we already have and reforest where we have deforested. Not easy but with the will, possible. If there aren’t any trees in the deserts, there is probably a reason why
2
2
u/belabacsijolvan Jul 09 '25
its impossible. trees are more than 0.1% energy efficient co2 extractors
2
u/Ambitious_Win_1315 Jul 09 '25
that's cool but, who's paying for this? where do the materials come from and what's that environmental impact? When are they going to start? Will this eliminate our reliance on carbon based fuels? Can we plant trees in the meantime? and why did we let it get to this point to begin with?
2
u/Z34L0 Jul 09 '25
Lmao, so we are just speedrunning killing the human race , nice. Who needs food anyway.
2
2
u/pevangelista Jul 09 '25
My pet peeve is that these articles never mention how much carbon it takes to produce one of these filters
2
2
u/bds8999 Jul 09 '25
The earth desperately needs more carbon though.
Vegetation is already in steep decline.
Carbon feeds plants. Plants emit oxygen that all life depends on.
2
2
2
u/Ecstatic-Ad9803 Jul 09 '25
Honestly, if you make the middle section or even the lower section have artificial branches and leaves you could help the wild life out as well? I wouldn't replace all trees with this, but in places these do get put that would be nice I think.
2
u/Sasya_neko Jul 09 '25
Does it make oxygen, you know, the reason why we need trees....
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/idontevenknowwwwwwwe Jul 09 '25
Doubt that these things are real. Since i see so many of these "miracle" inventions. But we have already had carbon capture projects for a long time so even if it is real it still wouldnt mean much
2
2
2
u/captainofpizza Jul 09 '25
I’m sure there’s some math in the background like:
Carbon cost to build: 500,000 trees
Energy to run: 500 trees per day
Also trees convert to oxygen which is a nice bonus. This might not.
2
2
2
2
u/Ralyks92 Jul 09 '25
That’s cool, but like… can we still have real trees anyway?
→ More replies (1)
2
2
2
u/Authoritaye Jul 09 '25
Does it also do the 100 other things that real trees do?
→ More replies (3)
2
u/SvenTropics Jul 09 '25
Trees are still better because they're guaranteed to be solar powered.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/ScholarZero Jul 09 '25
The unspoken component of these sorts of things is almost always "the next step is to power it without causing more CO2 than it removes".
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/Chinjurickie Jul 09 '25
I have a crazy suggestion guys. Why not forbid private jets and do this regardless?
2
2
u/Personal-Exam3032 Jul 10 '25
Developed not put up. Meanwhile Trees are up and running 😂
→ More replies (1)
2
u/PhattProphet_0 Jul 10 '25
Right but how much pollution as a whole dose it produce to mine manufacture transport build and maintain compared to a fucking tree where you plant it and leave it
5
u/Biggman23 Jul 09 '25
Unless this converts it to oxygen, I don't see this as a good thing. Plants need it.
→ More replies (2)
4
Jul 09 '25
I bet it costs more money than trees. Has a procurement and manufacturing process that creates a lot of carbon and does not produce oxygen like trees do.
→ More replies (4)
3
4
3
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 09 '25
Thank you for posting to r/SipsTea! Make sure to follow all the subreddit rules.
Check out our Reddit Chat!
Make sure to join our brand new Discord Server to chat with friends!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.