Since 2009, the idea proposed by Lackner was to manufacture 'artificial trees' to capture carbon from the atmosphere. The design can be seen below.
![]() |
Source: geoengineering2012 |
The idea has been supported by both the UK Royal Society and the Institution of Mechanical Engineers as the safest and most effective geoengineering technology suggested. However many statistics from 2009, when the advent of this proposed solution occurred, implied that these artificial trees would be demonstrated in society by at least 2014, which of course is today. Has anybody witnessed any demonstration of artificial trees yet?
The Institution of Mechanical Engineers actually believed that post-demonstration in 2014, a full scale 'forest' of artificial trees could be implemented by 2018, and global deployment by 2040 (Biello, 2009). The questions have to be asked: Why has this not happened? What has hindered the project's progress?
The hindrance could be a result of a multitude of reasons. Firstly, the concept sounds appealing: carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere using successful and efficient devices, yet where does this captured carbon go? The carbon inventory proposed was underground, and some geological formations have been tried and tested, for example Basalt, as it has the ability to absorb carbon dioxide over decadal timescales to produce minerals (Biello, 2009). However there have been many caveats concerned with underground sequestration. For example, how will it impact groundwater supplies? Is there potential for carbon leakage back into the atmosphere?
Other problems with air purification are dominantly economical. The project requires large land area, production of electricity and manufacture and installation, which will all come at a huge economical expense. It has been proposed that 10 million artificial trees would be required to reduce ~12% of anthropogenic carbon emissions per year (Schiffman, 2013), ergo making a colossal change in carbon reduction to pre-industrial levels would require a huge volume of air purification devices across the globe. Similarly each artificial tree is estimated to cost $24,000, therefore even 100,000 trees is already $2.4 trillion in expenses. Can we afford this?
In response to these caveats, and the Institution of Mechanical Engineers' proposals in 2009 for air purification to be ready for deployment and installation during 2014, I found it extremely difficult to find any recent academic papers evaluating artificial trees (mitigating those of course that were in reference to artificial Christmas trees, the latter end of November was probably not the best time to look!) or air purification. In fact, the academic scene is quite muted on the subject- does this mean that this proposed 'safest and most effective geoengineering scheme' is not as hopeful as first thought?
![]() |
Source: Cartoon Movement |
How do you think this project compares to the schemes proposed so far?
S xx
Would the tree project be implemented globally? I don't think it could be as effective as hoped if its localized in certain countries, especially if those localities aren't the ones emitting most of the CO2!
ReplyDeleteHello, yes the idea behind the implementation of artificial trees was for global deployment by 2040. I agree with you Charlie, that there has been differentiated responsibility with regards to carbon emissions, however, I do not think that the aim was for a localised implementation in a handful of countries, hopefully avoiding the associated conflict. Through global deployment, it ensures that we are optimising carbon dioxide removal by employing as many devices as possible.
DeleteDo they have to be placed near polluting areas like outside factories or cities, or could they be anywhere, like in the countryside or other 'cleaner' areas?
ReplyDeleteHello, I think it would appear optimal to place these devices in areas of higher atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, such as factories and urban areas, however, I do not think it is instructed for implementation in certain areas as of yet, particularly as the project is still in its proposal stage.
DeleteI similarly think that a benefit of these artificial trees is that unlike wind farms or solar panels, they are not associated to certain conditions. They do not need to be in windy or sunny areas, and as the carbon dioxide problem is global, increased implementation of the devices anywhere should continue to lower carbon dioxide emissions within the atmosphere. However, I do think that they would be more efficient in areas of increased pollution- I guess we will wait and see!