A new way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere | Jennifer Why you should make useless things 4 months ago   14:16

Share
TED
TED
Our planet has a carbon problem -- if we don't start removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, we'll grow hotter, faster. Chemical engineer Jennifer Wilcox previews some amazing technology to scrub carbon from the air, using chemical reactions that capture and reuse CO2 in much the same way trees do ... but at a vast scale. This detailed talk reviews both the promise and the pitfalls.

Check out more TED Talks: http://www.ted.com

The TED Talks channel features the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design -- plus science, business, global issues, the arts and more.

Follow TED on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/TEDTalks
Like TED on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TED

Subscribe to our channel: https://www.youtube.com/TED
MailFootballSoccer

Comments 1352 Comments

Daniel Pascoe
She fell for the the Global Warming Religion.
About Me
Idiots, it only 0.03% of atmosphere, even if it changes to 0.04% there no fucking impact no nothing, its like none existant! C02 is odorless harmless gas, food of plants
Ha Ha
Stop killing whales, the CO2 level will be reduced. Natural no chemical.
Xyz Same
the EU demands plant based fuel to be added to fossil fuel - for that the ancient rainforest are cut down (in Asia and Amazonia). And oilpalm monucultures replace the rainforests (and the people that used to live there). In these countries the oligarchs have it easy to seize the land and to brutally crush any resistance. The palm oil is _slightly_ cheaper than oil grown in the wealthy countries - and the food brands meanwhile belong to only a few multinationals - so even a few cents add up for them. Palm oil can also be used for plant based fuel.

The ancient Northern forests (boreal woods) are easy to harvest (flat, huge trees, no one cares because the areas are remote). So Siberia, Finland, Sweden, Canada are plundered (with huge machines that compress the soil to make things worse).

WHY ?

We _need_ (or demand) cheap wood - most of it is not even used for furniture but for cheap composite / or particle boards for cheap throw away furniture.

And this economic system does not include all the costs into a product - on the contrary shifting the externals costs to someone else or something else is rewarded.

And a lot of it goes into houses - now if the quality of the houses was better, they could be made to last much longer - and the environmental impact to cut down a tree (in a weatlhy country, or in the rainforest or the boreal woods) could be spread over the time of use of decades.

And if the quality of those boards was _slightly_ better (less or NO formaldehyd emissions !) and more stable (boards for cheap furniture) - it would be worth the while to recycle them.

And of course the forests of wealthy countries in the moderate climate zone could be used - with machines that do not ruin the soil. The trees grow much faster there, and the population would also react to "massacres" like they go unnoticed in the very remote boreal forests.

it makes a difference if you "take out" a few trees like in traditional logging - or if you cut down everything (it is also not comparable to a wildfire: the harvesters are much worse. That's a groundzero scenario. They REMOVE more biomass, destroy the soil. And a wildfire does not destroy everything although it may look like that. (in the soil there are seeds, roots - vegetation can and will bounce back, grass, shrubbery, and eventually trees).

Or trees are cut down by small farmers that do not use those harvesters at all (the better wood prices would secure some jobs in the rural areas. That means it would be viable to take care of the mountains growing on hills and mountains - avalanche and mudslide country. The forests are legally protected. Trees attacked by beetles or damaged by storms must be removed if the area is accessible at all.

And the owners of the area MUST replant and it is not allowed to cut down all at once. The forests stabilize the soil and the hills and good forest earth is also an excellent sponge to take up rain. So downpours will be less likely to lead to floodings and mudslides and the moistures is slowly released over time.

But that makes the raw material more expensive. Now if the boards are suitable for DIY, and the raw material even for simple furntiure is good sturdy quality , it can be sold and upcycled instead of being thrown away. Then the higher costs for for using the plentyful (but harder to harvest material) would be spread out over more years - the costs do no would not matter.

_Well, that is not how consumerism and throw-away culture works._

In countries like Germany and Austria the forests are growing, they still have a lot of SMALL farms that could well do with some extra income ("making wood" is traditionally winter work), the territory often does not allow for those harvesting machines anyway.
Xyz Same
It is difficult to pull CO2 out of the air ?? - there is sophisticated technology: It is called PLANTS - or ALGAE.
Google User
See this clown has the solution... Just tax people more! That should clean the air lol.
Toxic Canadian Lobster
2 minutes in and my first thought was, plant more trees!!
paul bruce
We worry about cost to much then our own well being and our family's well being and our children's well being I'm sure the people in Illinois and New Hampshire are not worry about cost they probably want the government to do something about climate change they should not have to go though that
Off-Grid Optimist
Wow, do you realize you just killed all the natural forests in the world! By having a solution that is 500 times more efficient per square foot we have now lost all legal battles against deforestation
Rob Wells
I don't get it? Why would you want to take all the carbon dioxide out of the air? My trees in my lawn love it! It's like they've created a solution looking for a problem.
Tom Misera
What a load of crap. You want to remove co2 , basically plant food. Just leave it alone, before you damage our plant eco system.
realistically speaking
Photosynthesis is faster and prettier
塞尔吉奥
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
塞尔吉奥
what if we were to start building homes with these systems?
that way obviously each home would start pulling in co2 :o
Victor L.
I jumped in too soon. She is saying A) don't burn fossil fuel, B) plant trees. Sounds like what the Earth used to be before we thought we need "stuff".
Victor L.
$50 bucks a ton?? Hmm... what is the air and future worth to your kids and grand kids? Quit causing the problem put some people out of work ( no offense Jennifer).
RonThePhotoGuy
A new way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere? Why would anyone want to do that? We need more CO2 in the atmosphere, not less! During the last 15 million years CO2 has been at crisis minimum levels, prior to that CO2 levels were always above 1000 ppm. We have billions of billions of devices that remove CO2, they are called plants, and they require 150 ppm of CO2 just to stay alive. They thrive when CO2 is several times greater than the present 400 ppm. Greenhouse operators know this, and they pay good money for CO2, which they pump into their greenhouses to provide for their plants. Meanwhile a collection of morons are trying to figure out how to remove the little bit of CO2 in the atmosphere by mechanical and chemical methods! 400 ppm is 2.6 times the absolute minimum necessary to sustain life on this planet, and she wants to reduce that buffer!

Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change is a fraud! http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf
SaveTheBiosphere
15 container ships put out as much Sulphur pollution as the worlds cars, NOT as much CO2, check the facts, very different, container ships use Bunker Fuel--~2,000 times the sulphur content...of even diesel, etc. They Do put out alot of CO2 as well, about 4% of global human... production.... Reforestation CAN be a big part.../plus..... See article for Shipping container pollution:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/feb/13/climatechange.pollution
FakeNoob Yup
Plant More Trees !
triman527
What a stupid illogical woman. Remove C02 from the atmosphere and Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc will pale in comparison!
Add Reply

Why you should make useless things A new way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere | Jennifer 4 months ago   11:58

Share
TED
In this joyful, heartfelt talk featuring demos of her wonderfully wacky creations, Simone Giertz shares her craft: making useless robots. Her inventions -- designed to chop vegetables, cut hair, apply lipstick and more -- rarely (if ever) succeed, and that's the point. "The true beauty of making useless things [is] this acknowledgment that you don't always know what the best answer is," Giertz says. "It turns off that voice in your head that tells you that you know exactly how the world works. Maybe a toothbrush helmet isn't the answer, but at least you're asking the question."

Check out more TED Talks: http://www.ted.com

The TED Talks channel features the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design -- plus science, business, global issues, the arts and more.

Follow TED on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/TEDTalks
Like TED on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TED

Subscribe to our channel: https://www.youtube.com/TED

Related Videos