What's stopping us from selectively breeding a plant that

>>8919396
What's stopping us from breeding humans who eat and shit twice as much?

>>8920800
Wouldn't you want to make people eat and shit less instead?

>>8920802
>[
nigga u dumb

File: consumer.png (224KB, 500x384px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 500x384px

>>8920800
I'm pretty sure it's in the works as we speak. Just look at the average american. Economists want this. It will save the economy.

>pic related

Also, this:
>>8920860

>>8919396
GMO plants as carbon sinks has been proposed for a long time. The issue is where to plant them, you're either taking up valuable agricultural land or you're replacing an existing ecosystem.

>>8920873
why not target farm crops for enhanced CO2/O2?

Perhaps this would indicate higher metabolism, which may mean faster growing crops.

File: GMO eucalyptus trees.jpg (505KB, 630x1418px) Image search: [Google]

505KB, 630x1418px

>>8919396
>>8920873
Already a thing.

GMO Eucalyptus was design to grow super fast. Any plant designed to grow super fast will be pulling in a lot more CO2 than a normal non-GMO plant of the same type.

Why don't we just plant more trees and stop cutting them down. GMO's are fuck'n stupid.

Anti-GMO leftist science deniers and hippies

>>8922653
>leftists
>science deniers

I think you are confused on multiple levels

Because it already exists and is called "green algae" you dumb fuck "rising freshman".

>>8919396
nothing.

>>8919396
Because if there isn't enough CO2 we will lose our atmosphhere. Coal energy production is a GOOD thing

>>8922681
The vast majority of Americans are science deniers, you dumb fuck.

>>8922955
The vast majority of Americans are right wing.

>>8919396
Plants produce O2 by metabolizing CO2, so the two are inextricably linked. Faster metabolism means that this process moves faster while also meaning that the plant grows faster. However, in doing this, the plant also demands more nutrients and may reproduce at a higher rate, making the unregulated use of such plants a possible threat to local plant life. It needs more water, richer soil, and controls on its reproduction for it to work with any practicality. That's not even going into issues of how much it would cost.

>>8919396
what should be done with the plants after that
if you burn them or let them decompose the would give the co2 back

File: 1495214874532.gif (652KB, 392x400px) Image search: [Google]

652KB, 392x400px

>Incredibly beneficial genetic modification implemented
>Libtards who can't into science think they are scary

chuckled sensibly

>>8923500
Literally anything but burning them or letting them rot

File: intel_pic.png (439KB, 496x373px) Image search: [Google]

439KB, 496x373px

>>8922689
what he said

Because reducing CO2 emissions are a million times easier, cheaper, faster, eventually inevitable anyway for a myriad of different reasons and it probably won't bite us in the ass as hard as what you're suggesting.

>>8921361
>why not breed crops that grow faster
STOP THE PRESSES THIS MAN IS A GENIUS

>>8922681
>try to expand hydropower capacity
m-muh localized ecosystem destruction

>try to expand wind turbine generation
m-muh birds

>try to expand nuclear capacity
lol no

>try to innovate with more efficient solar panels
b-but there is LEAD in those! can't do that

liberals have done more to impede energy science than conservatives by an order of magnitude. the only thing they want is more money for """""research""""" and more taxes on carbon fuel sources to inhibit their use.

>>8923681
>m-muh localized ecosystem destruction

It diversifies the ecosystem by creating another ecosystem within an existing one. That helps stabilize all ecosystems involved.

File: image.png (135KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 512x512px

>>8919396
They already exist, but they won't save us.
Why aren't we devoting massive resources to biodiversty conservation? Why aren't we actively removing roads?
Why are we doing basically nothing?
Because state-capitalist systems are manufacturing consent and obfuscating reality faster than the world bank can rob an entire culture of the world it lives in

We need ecological systems to enslave civilization and the climate. Our boundary conditions are subliminating and life will again suffer the cruel indifference of enthalpy released, as earth system order-parameters continue to bend and buckle under the weight of a rouge cause that can't see the effects.

We need to end capitalism and go about with some kind of ecological market anarchism if we want to survive and live a meaningful life

>>8923685
>>8923681
Hello engineers.
>localized ecosystem destruction
WRONG.
Try global earth system destabilization, with last consequences that walk around for all eternity
Go learn about some patch dynamics, trophic interactions, population dynamics , hydrology and riparian-wetland ground water recharge, local and landscape level nutrient cycle, soil structure and sedimentation in relation to hydrological flows and riparian ecosystems, relevant phenology, diadromous fish migrations, alpha/beta/gamma biodiversity, the effect hydrological-ecological systems have on climate dynamics, the urban sprawl that happens with damn building, and basic concepts like ecological connectivity, the enslavement principal. Ecological systems and networks in general. Let me know what's you want to read about first and I will link you lots of information, I don't want to seem condescending but your illiteracy threatens the love of my life.

File: image.jpg (52KB, 604x609px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 604x609px

>>8923758
>>8923681
Looks like I forgot to address something
>""""Research""""
sudoku yourself heritage foundation.
If you actually study the research you would know what kind of an asshole you are. you shouldn't be coming anywhere near /sci/.
You are being manipulated by corporate interest.
Fyi, I happen to want to see the state-capitalist system die suddenly. The "liberal and conservative"(meaningless words, are different factions of the business party
>an order of magnitude
On what scale?

>>8923758
And adaptive capacity

>>8923519
Terrible idea, the nutrients in the soil will be rapidly removed and depleted as it is taken up by successive generations of trees. We'd have to separate the nutrients (phosphorous is the most important), then put the nutrients back into the soil while keeping the carbon to be buried in an oxygen free environment. The best way to do that would probably be to anaerobically cook the wood into charcoal and ashes, then crush and soak the charcoal in water to remove the valuable mineral nutrients, then use the water to irrigate the plantations while burying the charcoal underground.

Also, if we're going to the trouble to produce millions of tons of wood charcoal per year in order to offset the carbon pollution, we may as well just stop mining an equal amount of coal and just burn the charcoal produced instead of digging up carbon to burn while burying more carbon somewhere else. Especially considering that wood charcoal burns more cleanly than coal.