Why not real trees?

[loripo]

Did you see this in the news recently?
How forests of fake trees across Britain could fight global warming | Mail Online

The photo itself gave me the willies. I presume these have to be powered somehow (via the wind turbines?), and maintained. Someone must be going to make a fortune supplying these for all the motor ways.

[Amoeba]

The idea is probably a quick-fix, since fake trees can probably be built faster than real trees can be grown.

I still disagree with the whole thing. Real trees bring far more benefits than just cleaning the air alone, and if these fake trees begin to be seen as the norm people might be more inclined to build more where real trees would previously have been planted.

[The Woodman]

It's an interesting idea all the same.

If they hadn't been called fake trees but by an upbeat acronym like CaDiFi, would the idea be a little more palatable?

It's the other end of problem that needs sorting - the infernal combustion engine that we all love so much.

[Amoeba]

Originally Posted by The Woodman

It's the other end of problem that needs sorting - the infernal combustion engine that some people love so much.

Fixed.

And no, I don't think people are dumb enough to be enticed by sugar-coating. Whether it was called 'fake trees' or 'pink elephants' the feeling would still be the same.

[The Woodman]

Where would we be without them?

[big bill]

First it was the wind generators that would solve our problems and give us the much needed power that we need,To power every household in the country they would have to build these ulgy monstrosities on every hilltop in the country to provide the country with its electricty at what cost to the countryside .
Thew Highlands have already sufferred through these ugly farms they scar the countryside and damage wildlife habitat ,others will argue they dont .
As to this new thing artificial trees again another carbunkle to put alongside a giant wind generator.
The only people benifiting out of it are the manufactrures the next thing some crazed scientist will say is we can make the sunshine longer to help grow wheat and barley quicker using mirrors come on people lets get real

[excoriate]

Originally Posted by big bill

First it was the wind generators that would solve our problems and give us the much needed power that we need,To power every household in the country they would have to build these ulgy monstrosities on every hilltop in the country to provide the country with its electricty at what cost to the countryside .
Thew Highlands have already sufferred through these ugly farms they scar the countryside and damage wildlife habitat ,others will argue they dont .
As to this new thing artificial trees again another carbunkle to put alongside a giant wind generator.
The only people benifiting out of it are the manufactrures the next thing some crazed scientist will say is we can make the sunshine longer to help grow wheat and barley quicker using mirrors come on people lets get real

For goodness sakes, theres a never ending supply of anti wind nutters on here!

Anyone living in the Highlands would know that the real scars on the landscape are caused by overgrazing by sheep, conifer plantations and quarries!

As for the fake trees, well, the cost of them alone should put the idea of them firmly to bed. Thankfully.

[Rich_]

Originally Posted by The Woodman

It's an interesting idea all the same.

It's the other end of problem that needs sorting - the infernal combustion engine that we all love so much.

That's just a small part of it ,
Deforestation to grow food & build homes for an ever increasing number of people is a bigger problem. If we left the real trees in the ground we wouldn't need synthetic ones.

[loripo]

Here in London the land is at such a premium (I'm sure if they could get their mitts on the parks and commons they would), they are trying to build taller and taller blocks of flats. You may have read about Charlie stopping the redevelopment of the Chelsea Barracks site and all the problems with the proposals for the Battersea Power station site -one on either side of Chelsea bridge. When you look at the number of dwellings they want to cram in, the sheer weight of the people trying to get from one side of the river to the other would have backed up traffic for miles around. There are planning applications for 40 storey tower blocks on a tiny traffic island 2 miles from here and I think about the amount of power needed to keep all the internal lighting going and the lifts. Two towers were proposed for a complex to be built over Clapham Junction railway station (which I believe is one of the busiest in UK) - twin towers over such a major junction - great target for the next 9/11. Then there's parking - possibly 2 cars per flat...It just goes on and on.....

[Rich_]

At least if they are building upwards they are using less ground space . but like you say, all these extra dwellings require power! sanitation etc to meet the damands of more people

[welshcameraman]

If these " fake trees" are designed to remove all of the carbon emissions of every car,bus and lorry in the country then surely it would be a good idea, even if it did mean erecting around 100,000 of them.. Though ,wouldn't be quite a bit less controversial to make a small version and attach it to the exhaust of every car, bus and lorry in the country.....Or am I missing something????????
Martin

[loripo]

I'm not sure about the technical bits - will see if I can find out, but it said about the CO2 emissions being 'buried', so would that mean pipes?

[The Woodman]

Originally Posted by welshcameraman

Though ,wouldn't be quite a bit less controversial to make a small version and attach it to the exhaust of every car, bus and lorry in the country.....Or am I missing something????????
Martin

Did you see the item on a recent Top Gear where they attached a box of CO2 absorbing rocks to a Jaguars exhaust? Result - zero CO2 emmissions.

[pressld2]

I didn't see the programme but...

The box to hold the rocks needs to be manufactured and transported = CO2 emmissions
The rocks need to be quarried and transported = CO2 emmissions
The spent rocks need to be transported and disposed of = CO2 emmissions

To say nothing of the extra fuel used to lug a box of rocks around behind the car and the fact that we don't have a never ending supply of CO2 absorbing rocks or a never ending supply of landfill sites to dump them in afterwards.

Clarkson can often be amusing and entertaining but I wouldn't look to him for any serious environmental proposals!

Dave P.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by pressld2

To say nothing of the extra fuel used to lug a box of rocks around behind the car and the fact that we don't have a never ending supply of CO2 absorbing rocks or a never ending supply of landfill sites to dump them in afterwards.

Clarkson can often be amusing and entertaining but I wouldn't look to him for any serious environmental proposals!

Dave P.

i think you might be missing the point dave - large box of rocks attached to the exhaust = car undrivable = zero co2 emmited.

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by eeyore

i think you might be missing the point dave - large box of rocks attached to the exhaust = car undrivable = zero co2 emmited.

LOL! Now you're talking! That might just work...

Dave P.

P.s. You're not the Stig, are you?

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by pressld2

P.s. You're not the Stig, are you?

that would be telling