backtop


Print 53 comment(s) - last by Phoque.. on Oct 7 at 9:51 PM


  (Source: Take Pride in Utah)
Sending carbon to their roots to become soil carbon could sequester it for centuries

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory researchers claim that global warming can be fought through the use of genetically altered trees and plants.

The leaders of the study – Christer Jansson, Stan D. Wullschleger, Udaya C. Kalluri, and Gerald A. Tuskan – believe that creating forests of genetically altered trees and plants will remove "several billion tons of carbon" annually from the atmosphere, ultimately helping in the battle against global warming.

Researchers plan to increase the efficiency of these trees and plants' natural processes that allow them to remove carbon dioxide from the air by transforming it into "long-lived" forms of carbon. They would like to do this first in vegetation, and eventually in soil. 

Genetically altering trees and plants' absorption of light isn't all these researchers are looking to do, though. In addition, they'd like to make it so that these plants send more carbon into their roots as well, which would transform some of it into soil carbon. This could stifle the carbon and keep it from the air for centuries. 

Researchers are also genetically altering plants to "better withstand" the complications of growing on marginal land in order to produce improved food crops and bioenergy. This could increase the amount of carbon plants take in from the air significantly. 

The combination of genetically altered trees and plants sending carbon to its roots to be put to rest for centuries along with improved bioenergy and food crop production could yield results that are beneficial to fighting global warming and its consequences. 

This study was published in Bioscience.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Why the genetic engineering?
By icemansims on 10/1/2010 3:57:22 PM , Rating: 0
Look, I'm not trying to be rude here, but I've got to be honest. Mankind has basically 4 choices.

1.) increase land use, which means less pristine forests, less wildlife and basically less nature.

2.) use the technology we have available in the form of chemical processing, which means a higher degree of all kinds of pollution.

3.) use the technology we have available for genetic engineering to make better use of the land we have available for use, risking a possible disaster.

4.) or kill off a significant portion of the human race to reduce land demand.

It's a simple matter of supply and demand. Either increase the supply or decrease the demand.


RE: Why the genetic engineering?
By quiksilvr on 10/1/2010 4:10:36 PM , Rating: 1
5) Use hemp for paper and stop chopping down trees. Hemp is more economical, takes less time to grow, can be grown virtually anywhere and doesn't need to be bleached.


RE: Why the genetic engineering?
By icemansims on 10/1/2010 4:14:22 PM , Rating: 1
I'm not talking about just paper.

Wood in general, land use for crops/livestock, all land humans use.


By roadhog1974 on 10/3/2010 7:18:15 PM , Rating: 2
That will give you more hemp and less trees.


RE: Why the genetic engineering?
By YashBudini on 10/4/2010 10:56:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hemp is more economical, takes less time to grow, can be grown virtually anywhere and doesn't need to be bleached.

It would also create indestructable clothing. If people behaved like Ralph Nader the two combined could make the clothing industry a very small player.


RE: Why the genetic engineering?
By solarrocker on 10/1/2010 4:14:47 PM , Rating: 2
If we go for 4, can we make a game show out of it? (Remembers a episode of Sliders, anybody else used to watch that series?)


RE: Why the genetic engineering?
By vol7ron on 10/1/2010 4:22:50 PM , Rating: 1
I remember that show, if it's the one where they used to slide into parallel dimensions w/ certain jump-points on a timer.

Sort of like a Quantum Leap idea.


By solarrocker on 10/1/2010 4:32:38 PM , Rating: 1
Correct, I can remember the one where most of the earth had vast oil deposits but they mostly were on fire.

Or the one where world population was being kept down by killing people in a contest.


RE: Why the genetic engineering?
By blueboy09 on 10/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: Why the genetic engineering?
By KCjoker on 10/1/2010 7:03:49 PM , Rating: 1
I remember that show because of Kari Wuhrer...yowza.


RE: Why the genetic engineering?
By mkrech on 10/1/2010 4:37:19 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you for not trying to be rude... I'll try as well.

Unfortunately, your solutions are based off assumptions that are simply not based on facts. Also, your narrow minded assumptions limit many possibilities.

Try to imagine the technology that will be available in 50-100 years. It may help to imagine you are living in the late 1800's and with the with the knowledge of that time could you predict any of what we can do now? Now it may be easier to understand that your ability to predict what will be possible yet in your lifetime is quite unlikely.

Be positive. The worst thing we could do now is to over-react to a problem that doesn't even exist.

Analogy: The plane has engine trouble. Since it is going to crash anyway we might as well just jump.


RE: Why the genetic engineering?
By Da W on 10/1/2010 4:40:53 PM , Rating: 3
5) Start-up google-earth and take a look at how much free-land there is still. It's not that bad. As people get richer they make less babies. The world population will stabilize by itself, i am not worried.


RE: Why the genetic engineering?
By Phoque on 10/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: Why the genetic engineering?
By JediJeb on 10/4/2010 5:47:21 PM , Rating: 2
If we were using more resources annually than the earth can give us, then we should have run out last year and had none this year.


RE: Why the genetic engineering?
By Phoque on 10/7/2010 9:51:06 PM , Rating: 2
Not quite. For example, if can't grow enough trees annually, people will cut down trees in the forest.

If we extract fish at a rate greater than they can reproduce annually, fish population will drop.

See it as the earth already having some ressources in the bank account, when we take more than the interests or our deposits can cover, we deplete it.

Here is the link I got my information from ( it`s in french ):
http://www.ledevoir.com/non-classe/6252/le-dernier...

It says that, based on US National Science Academy numbers published in 2002, we were already outspending the earth`s capacity by 20% in terms of its regenerating capacity for forests, lands used for crops and renewable energies.


RE: Why the genetic engineering?
By xthetenth on 10/3/2010 1:17:08 PM , Rating: 3
Yep, it's actually scary how fast reproductive rates have started going down. China doesn't actually need the one child policy in most cases except for the tradition where they need a male child to support them when they get older.

If you want more detail, read this, it's very interesting:
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/has_the_population_bo...


"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki